Grilled Salmon

I took the basic recipe for this from a recipe in the Cleveland Plain Dealer quite a number of years ago, but I don't have a date on it, nor does the actual recipe mention a cook or cookbook for credit. I'm a salmon lover and I've always enjoyed this, so I've fixed it often over the years. Of course, you can just bake the fish in the oven, if you don't want to grill it, and I've done both many times.

1/4 cup teriyaki sauce
1/4 cup lemon juice
3 tablespoons brown sugar (I use dark, but the actual recipe doesn't specify)
1 to 1 1/2 tablespoons canola oil
1 clove of garlic, roughly chopped
about 3 to 4 lbs. salmon fillets, with skin, pin bones removed

Place salmon, skin side down, on heavy aluminum foil (recipe suggests double layer of foil). Mix all ingredients and baste the salmon with it, reserving some of the mixture for later. Let sit for about 15-20 minutes. Place fish on open grill for about 30 minutes, basting occasionally with the reserved mixture. Salmon should be opaque at its thickest part before removing from the heat. The recipe says the internal temperature (if you have thermometer to insert) should read 135 to 140 degrees. While the recipe says "serve hot or cold," I've always initially eaten it hot, but then finished it off after it's been refrigerated for a few hours. It's good either way.

With a salad dressed with my homemade ranch dressing *

* The recipe for ranch dressing is at this link:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2016/06/homemade-ranch-dressing.html

WORD HISTORY:
Salmon-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear. It goes back to Latin "salmo(n)," which was used for the fish name, but where Latin got the word is not clear. Some believe the Romans borrowed the word from a Celtic source^, while others trace the term to the Latin verb "salire," which meant "to jump, to leap," thus, if correct, making salmon "the jumping fish." The Latin verb goes back to Indo European "sel/sil," with the notion being "jump, spring, leap." Whatever the case, Old French inherited a form of the word as "saumon," and English borrowed the word as "samon" during the 1200s. This gradually replaced the native English word "leax," a close relative of modern "lox," a word borrowed by American English from Yiddish speaking immigrants.

^ Celtic is a group of languages derived from Indo European. While once widespread in Europe, today the Celtic languages are much reduced to include Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic, Welsh, and Breton (in France), none of which is truly a national language. The Celts and their various dialects were generally overtaken by Germanic dialects, including English, and by Latin. The Celtic languages are related to English, but further down the family tree.

The Economic Philosophies Do Battle

There are deep, emotional and opposing philosophical beliefs by many an American about our economic system. "Generally," the political right says the system is just dandy, that only the private sector can do things efficiently, that government is the enemy (except in military matters), that the free markets are supreme and never wrong, and that giving money to the country's wealthiest people via tax cuts will help everyone. The political left is "generally" against all of the above, to put it simply, calling tax cuts to the wealthy "trickle down economics," and generally supporting government intervention during downturns, and supporting government aid to help level the playing field and give a helping hand up for those not born into wealth, and to help those damaged by the sharp edges of capitalism. My "guess" is, most Americans hold opinions "somewhere in the middle" of all of this, with their opinions about specific aspects of the American economic system often colored by their own experiences, and also likely being at times contradictory. I also "assume" some Americans swing back and forth, depending upon the political winds, but again more likely swayed by their own perceived sense of how things are going for themselves and for the country at any given moment. These are the people who generally determine the outcome of national elections. During the self centered individualism of the 1920s, these kinds of folks leaned toward the more conservative pro-business approach mentioned above, and they voted Republican.* When that system imploded, bringing about the Great Depression, many of these people turned with a vengeance on their own previously held beliefs. Not only did they vote Democratic, but they helped to make the general liberal-progressive philosophy the dominant political philosophy of the country for decades, as the economic collapse showed them how we need each other, and how government can help, although sometimes imperfectly. Throughout that progressive era, the rich were still the rich and they did just fine.

For more than three decades now the country has moved in the direction essentially favored by those on the political right. I think it's a fair assumption to say that even many on the political right have a feeling the country has been going downhill. Part of the rationale for the Tea Party was that the country had to be righted (no pun intended). The funny thing was, many in the Tea Party blamed the newly elected Barack Obama as the culprit, rather than to look back at how wealth has ascended to the top in record amounts. You can like Obama, or not like Obama, but to act as if the country's problems all began when he took office is not only unfair, it's living in serious denial. They never admit that the economic philosophy they've supported has anything to do with the nation's decline. No, they're looking for scapegoats. Scapegoats who will give them a chance to keep from looking at themselves and at the ideas they've supported, because that's just too scary to face. Many arguments are not easily refuted until they have been tested, and the trickle down economics of the last few decades has had more than its day in court. It doesn't work, except for the upper incomes, where the richest 400 now control more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans; that is, almost half of the country.

Throughout the trickle down era there has been a war on government, and that's no coincidence, because the greediest of the superegos are far more fearful of what government CAN do, than what it can't do, when it comes to their self interest. The removal of regulations, tepid enforcement of existing regulations, one-sided trade deals, tax cuts heavily weighted to top earners, all combined to put many Americans in a stagnant income period, at best (in actual purchasing power), and many have not been "so lucky," as their incomes have actually fallen. We need regulation and adequate tax policy before the egomaniacs among the wealthy destroy all of us, a feat some nearly accomplished just a few short years ago, and from which we still have not fully recovered, although they have done VERY well in the same time frame. If you're further out on the left, these kinds of changes will not be adequate for you, but it's good to remember, progress is generally slow, and progressives need to start making progress on economic matters. Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to derail change, that's what conservatism does. It's also good to keep in mind, America's original conservatives in the era when the colonies moved toward independence, favored rule by England, but once independence was gained, conservatives joined in.

Coming soon; in fact, maybe next, I'll have some support for the wealthy, but I doubt conservatives will like it anyway.  

* While the two major political parties have changed dramatically since the 1920s, the post-Teddy Roosevelt Republicans moved much more toward pro-business stances, although in those times labor unions often supported the GOP, and black Americans were nearly 100% Republican. The Great Depression turned the tables so much and gave Democrats such a leg up, the Republicans had little room on the political spectrum to maneuver. They ever so gradually began their march to where they are today on the political right, with really no "liberal Republicans," a once common element of the GOP, and with moderately conservative members seemingly intimidated by vocal right wing activists. The party has moved so far to the right, former moderate Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George Bush Sr. rarely, if ever, even get a mention by today's Republicans (some Democrats mention them more favorably than Republicans); and, even Ronald Reagan's conservative credentials have been questioned by some on the right who have said he was "too moderate." Of course the pro-business and pro-wealthy tax cuts and other such policies of George W. Bush get a thumbs up from Republicans, but they rarely mention him either, as it's tough to criticize Obama and Democrats for bank and auto company bailouts, when it was Bush who started these programs (see note at end of this paragraph). Then too, federal deficits exploded under Bush, as a combination of tax cuts, unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare expansion, unfunded homeland security, stagnant wages for many, lower wages for some (less tax revenue), and a later imploding economy saw the deficit soar to about 1.4 trillion dollars when Bush left office. (Note: The bailouts by Bush are to his credit, in my opinion, and Democrats can't have it both ways either, supporting Obama's moves in these matters, but denouncing Bush's. There most certainly needed to be "conditions" on the bailouts, but without the overall bailouts, we likely would have suffered a far worse collapse on the order of the 1930s. Bush was slow coming to the ballgame, always having touted "free markets," but in the end, he stepped up to the plate, with several Republicans in Congress voting against his proposals.)

WORD HISTORY:
Who-This common word goes back to Indo European "kwis/kwos," with the meanings "who," "which," "what," depending upon usage, with variations in pronunciation for usage also. This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hwas/hwos" (as the "kw" had softened to "hw") with the same meanings, but also "how," and again with spelling/pronunciation variations depending upon usage. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which meant "who." This eventually evolved into modern "who." The variant spellings/pronunciations mentioned above evolved into modern English "whom" (for the object) and "whose" (for possessive or the genitive), while other forms evolved into "how," "where," "why," "which," and "what." Because of the wide number of variations, it is sometimes difficult to see the relationship of these numerous English words to each other, let alone to their Germanic cousins, but here they are for "who," and they all are from the same source as the English word: German and Low German Saxon have "wer," Dutch has "wie,"^ Frisian has "wa," Danish has "hvo," Norwegian has "hvem," Swedish has "vem," and Icelandic has "hver."

^ In German "wie" means "how."     

Greed For The Moment

Throughout our lives we hear about the need to think ahead, but I'm not sure we can really do that, most of us anyway, at least not enough of us or far enough into the future. When I was in school in the 1960s, there was talk of computers being the way of the future and that students needed to choose training for that future. Some heeded that advice from those with the foresight into the developing computer advances, but too few, in my opinion, including myself, took the advice. It's a tough sell telling people, especially when we're young, that we need to do such and such for the future. For young people the future is the next school dance, the next school sporting event or the next legal holiday when school will be closed. With the wealthiest of Americans, some people ask, "Can't they see where their greed is leading?" So will greed for the moment threaten to later bring down dog-eat-dog capitalism? No question about it, the money is going to the top of the income ladder, but is there a point where that top rung of the ladder collapses from the weight of all the wealth up there?

Technology and the sending of sectors of the economy out the country for cheap labor and ways to get around workplace and environmental regulation can only go so far, as the resulting consequences of stagnant or declining wages for so many Americans come home to roost. It's a vicious cycle, with lower wages requiring cheaper goods for lower paid workers to be able to afford to buy them, but with the increased profits going to the top, where few seemingly can see, or want to see, from that lofty perch, that the Titanic is heading for an iceberg.

The growing income gap is not just about technology and the decline in manufacturing, but also about the  financial sector, which has expanded as a part of the economy for the last several decades. As finance expanded, it began to need more income to sustain the big and increasing salaries in the industry, as well as its growing workforce. The financial sector makes money a number of ways, two of which obviously are through fees for various services and commissions on transactions. How do you collect more commissions? By selling more stocks and bonds. How do you get people to invest more in stocks and bonds? You show them profits. How do you show them more profits? By selling more of something and by cutting costs to increase margins. As you can see, it's not a big leap to "cutting wages and benefits by shipping jobs and production to places where costs are low, thus increasing profits." If true wealth is measured by tangible items; that is, things we can actually touch and which usually have some endurance, what does the financial sector produce for Americans? Not a hell of a lot, although it can be involved in helping produce wealth and it IS important. We've seen a similar situation with the growth in lawyers, as a number of Americans poured into law schools to be trained in legal matters, a profession that typically pays well above average income. What happened? Lawsuits went wild, as the expanding legal profession needed more business to pay for all of the added lawyers and incomes. The action of the financial and legal sectors is not a terribly tough one to figure out folks, as at its heart, it is about self interest.  

Hm, I don't know about you, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the need for more income brought about risky ventures in the financial sector, especially after protections against nonsense were removed in the 1999/2000 era.  If such risky ventures pay off, those involved can make big money, but when they fail or are so misguided, as was the mortgage fiasco, LOOK OUT, but it was greed for the moment, "we want money NOW!" Few, if any, at the top paid no real penalty and they certainly did not spend any time in prison, although their schemes almost brought down the entire world economy. In the end, to halt a potential collapse of world finance, governments, including the U.S., first under George W. Bush and then under Barack Obama, stepped in with money; that is, taxpayer money, to bolster the teetering financial system. So the rewards up to that point went to millionaires and billionaires, but the losses were covered by that dreaded entity ... GOVERNMENT; that is, society. Amazingly, many in the upper class speak against socialism, but I guess that only counts when they aren't the ones getting "socialized." (In fairness here, a good deal of the "bailout money" has been paid back.)

Most Americans can't save the necessary amount, if anything, for retirement. It's easy for the wealthy to talk about people needing to save money for retirement, they have money ANY TIME.* There is a high proportion of Americans living essentially paycheck to paycheck, a very dangerous situation (some say 3/4 of all Americans, but even if that's a bit high, and it's "only" 2/3, that's still not great either). Lack of savings makes Social Security mandatory, as it's the only thing to keep many older Americans from being totally destitute, and Medicare and Medicaid, both targets of the superegos and their right wing allies, provides needed medial care to the elderly, the poor and the disabled. Many Americans fiddle while their own personal Rome burns, oblivious to the scheming of the rightists and fascists who can't stand the fact that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are shared national programs. They want control and their cut of the action. Don't be fooled by "privatization" talk, meant only to open the door to the treasure chest for the wealthy interests. They always seek to make matters about money with the euphemism "free markets," because then they can control it; "free markets"=control by the wealthy, not anything else, there's no other definition. To the wealthy, Social Security just can't be right because it is in part financed by lower interest rate securities. To wealthy and financial people who love to talk about "yields" on stocks and bonds, that's almost criminal, because their own personal sense of business, driven by human greed (we all have it to some extent) just can't accept that. They lack the ability to grasp anything that isn't solely about making money.** They have to be regulated by us, because they can't self regulate; many lack the perspective necessary to do so. It often tends to be "greed for the moment." In one episode of "Gilligan's Island," the castaways are threatened by an active volcano. When the Professor needs a timing device for a bomb to act as a counter to the volcano, super millionaire Mr. Thurston Howell III SELLS him a clock. Even in the face of danger or death, he just couldn't give up that business idea of making a profit on something. It may only have been a television comedy, but there's an underlying truth there. All well and good to talk about the future, but people live in the present.

* America really took off as a "consumer" driven nation in the 1920s. Mass production of various goods needed a market to sell those goods, which brought investment in mass marketing to "encourage" Americans to buy products. Consumer credit (often called "charge accounts" back then) expanded tremendously to allow Americans to buy products on credit and pay for them in installments. The increasing spread of electricity and the invention of several electrical devices, like refrigerators, radios and mixers, saw sales skyrocket, and profits for companies soared too, but wages did not soar so much. After an intense run-up, the whole thing took a major nosedive in a little event termed the Great Depression. So when I say Americans cannot always save for retirement, what I mean is, many people make bad choices, buying things to "keep up with the Joneses," but then again, there are pulls and tugs at us going on all of the time. Self esteem is certainly in play, as some folks try hard to be seen as "cool" and part of "what's happnin'." On the other hand, those preaching for Americans to save are trying to have it both ways; that is, they want us to spend, spend, spend to buy their products and services, but then they preach about too much credit and too little savings. What the right balance is, I don't know, but I believe I'm safe in saying, "we aren't in balance, nor have we been, for quite some time."

** To add some balance, the opposites can't understand about human greed, let alone big money greed, and they seem to think things get financed from thin air. There is balance here somewhere, folks, but finding it is often difficult, especially in the last several decades of  the "greed is good" mentality.  

WORD HISTORY:
Wight-This ultimate origin of this now generally archaic word is unknown, and "apparently," besides forms in the Germanic languages, it has some connection with Slavic (Russian "vesc" and Old Church Slavonic "vesti," both meaning "thing, matter"), but it is related to English "whit," (small object, particle).^ Old Germanic had "wihktiz," which seems to have meant "substance, matter." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wiht," with the meaning "person, being, creature." Other forms in Germanic are: German "Wicht" (small child, rascal, imp, little creature); Low German "Wicht" (young girl); Dutch "wicht" (child, small creature); Swedish "vätte" (imp, gnome). I did not find a form in Frisian, but sources on this close relative of English are not exactly abundant, so such a form may well exist, or like English, it could now be archaic. Further I could not find forms in Danish, Icelandic or Norwegian.  

^ Now more commonly used in an expression like, "I don't even care one whit about it."   

^^ For the use of "wight" as part of the word that became modern "not," see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/08/success-not-excess.html

Hot Buttered Crab, Great Seafood Recipe

 I added 2 new photos and I added a little more info to the recipe, 7-7-22

 

Hot Buttered Crab
I jotted down this recipe sometime in the late 1990s from the television cooking show "Two Fat Ladies," which was filmed in England by and for the BBC, but carried on The Food Network in the United States. The show had Clarissa Dickson Wright and Jennifer Paterson, two English cooks, traveling around England and parts of Britain fixing dishes in various settings. Regrettably, Ms. Paterson, a heavy smoker, died of lung cancer and so the series ended. I'm certain I did not copy down every exact detail of the recipe, as they used whole cooked crabs, for one thing, so let's just say this is my version, but if you live in an area where crab is easily obtained and it doesn't cost a week's pay per pound ... hey, go for it. Crab is expensive and not always readily available in many parts of the country at a decent price (ah, maybe nowhere at a decent price?), so I have learned to use a mixture of imitation crab (actually spelled "c-h-e-a-p-e-r") and canned or lump crab meat. Crab has a delicate flavor, so you won't really be cheated by using imitation mixed with some real crab. I've made this recipe at least 3-5 times a year since I saw that show. I'd say you could also use this recipe for a firm flesh white fish.

About 2 lbs or so of mixed imitation and real crab meat (always check for shell bits)
1 clove of garlic, chopped
2 anchovy fillets* chopped
1/2 to 1 stick butter**
about 1/4 cup white wine***
juice of one lemon
some lemon zest (this is strictly my idea, but it adds a little more fresh lemon flavor and you've already got the lemon anyhow; I suggest 1 teaspoon zest up to 1 tablespoon, if you like lemony taste)
hot sauce (this is what they used on the television show, but I use some minced, fresh hot peppers, like serranos or jalapenos, I like spicy food, so I use 2 or 3 chilies, including the seeds)
couple ounces of bread crumbs (I believe they made their own on the show, but I use store bought, and the sun has always come out again at some point)
salt (don't forget, the anchovies will add some salt, so I don't use much salt)
freshly ground black pepper to taste (I use 1/2 teaspoon)
2 to 3 tablespoons freshly chopped parsley (or if you only have dried parsley, use it, you'll live through it, I have)

Start by sautéing the garlic, the anchovies and the hot peppers (if you use hot pepper sauce instead, add it a little later) in some butter (or butter/canola oil) until the garlic softens and the anchovies melt and blend in, gradually add the rest of the butter + the wine, the lemon juice and lemon zest. Allow the mixture to heat up, then add the crab meat a little at a time and stir gently until the crab is coated. Then gently mix in about half of the bread crumbs and some parsley. If I remember right, on the show they then took the crab mixture and put it into the crab shells they had kept. You can put the mixture into a casserole or some baking dish. In either case, top the mixture with the rest of the bread crumbs and parsley and put under the broiler for a few minutes until browned.

* Don't panic if you don't like anchovies. Used in cooking, anchovies melt away and add flavor, but not the strong flavor many undoubtedly associate with anchovy pizza, or when used directly on salads. You can also soak them in a bit of milk for a few minutes to remove some of the salt, if you'd like.

** Or you can substitute some canola oil (or other neutral oil) for some of the butter. I wouldn't use olive oil, as it has flavor, but canola is a neutral oil.

*** When I wrote the recipe down, I wrote white vermouth, as that must have been what they used, but since I first tried this, I've used different varieties of white wine, including some a bit sweeter, and the world hasn't ended. The later addition of the bread crumbs will help absorb any excess liquid if the mixture seems too moist at first. 

WORD HISTORY:
Crab-This word for the multi-legged, double clawed sea creature goes back to Indo European "gerebh/gerbh," which meant "to scratch, to carve, to dig into." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "krabho," which "seems" to have developed along the Germanic speaking seacoast areas of northern Europe, as the high German dialects apparently borrowed the term from Low German.^ The name naturally came about from the notion of the claws "scratching or digging into something," hopefully not your finger. The Old Germanic form gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "crabba," which then became "crabbe" (the ending "e" likely pronounced "eh/ah"), before the modern version. The perception of the crab to be a bit cantankerous for the quick use of its claws brought use of the word for such a person. The "crab" of "crab apple" is likely a different word that simply came to be spelled that way by chance, or by influence of "crab." The other Germanic languages have: German "Krabbe" (crab, but also often used in every day language for shrimp from the North Sea) and "Krebs" (crab, but also crayfish when speaking of a river/stream), both forms came to High German from Low German; Low German "Krabb" (crab, but also small shrimp) and "kreevt" (crab, crayfish); Dutch "krab" (crab) and kreeft (crayfish); Danish "krabbe(r)" (crab) and "krebs" (crayfish); Norwegian "krabbe" (crab) and "kreps" (crayfish); Icelandic "krabbi" (crab); and Swedish "krabba" (crab) and "kräfta" (crayfish).   

^ Naturally this would make sense, as the speakers of the high dialects were further south, away from the sea; thus they would have had no need for a name for a creature they didn't have near them. Undoubtedly travel and trade gave them the necessity for such a word, which they then conveniently borrowed from their close relative, Low German.

American Anxiety

The 1960s were turbulent. There was the Vietnam War and its many casualties, the anti-war protests, which often turned violent, race riots, polluted waters, polluted air, escalating heroin use, assassinations, and the threat of nuclear war, but America's middle class was thriving, buying homes in the expanding array of suburbs, and all the negatives swirling through the country couldn't overcome that one positive on a collective basis. Many Americans felt they had a decent shot to succeed economically, in spite of all the negatives going on. In more recent times, public opinion generally shows Americans as much more pessimistic and sour on the direction of the country; after all, even when many have jobs, the wages and benefits (if there are many) are not going to give them security. There's an "angst" by many who are living on the edge of poverty, just a few paychecks or less from ruin. Forget about the growth in the economy or the declining deficit, the MONEY is going to the top earners, many of whom are scheming to hasten the upward siphoning effect by further suppressing wages or benefits, or both. Part time work has escalated since the 1980s, and while it may keep some from total poverty, it is no substitute for a good paying job with nice benefits. There's been a growing trend that many jobs do not pay workers enough to provide life sustaining income, thus forcing many Americans to take second, or even third, jobs, if available, or if they don't collapse or drop dead from overwork. And you probably thought the ancient Egyptians, southern plantation owners, and the Nazis were the only ones who loved slave labor. The "angst" has been growing since, I'd say, the 1970s, but it really escalated in the last couple of decades, as Americans saw whole plants move out of the country, along with their jobs. As that happened it put pressure on wages and the spiral downward seems to be never ending. Temporary employment agencies, once seen as saviors in hard times, expanded in numbers, a sign of how serious the nation's fortunes had swooned for workers. This all has created a whole new American underclass, devoid of much hope of living a halfway decent life. All the while the top earners took a larger and larger share of the national income. They often call themselves "patriots" and "religious," although they're neither, but when you have lots of money, you get to define the terms yourself, but then again, we've allowed them to get away with it. It's not without reason that Warren Buffett noted that in the real class warfare being waged, HIS class has been winning. People can muddle through all sorts of problems, but when they have little or no hope of economic security, they'll never feel good.

WORD HISTORY:
Wise-This word, closely related to "wit," goes back to Indo European "weid," which had the notion "to see;" thus, "to know how to go, proceed." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wisaz," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the adjective "wis," which meant "learned, experienced." The same source also gave English the verb form, which meant "to become learned, to become aware," now often used in the expression "wise up,"^ but it can also be used (but seldom is anymore, although some sources say it is still used this way in some dialects in England) from the standpoint of the speaker saying, "I'll wise you up," meaning "to make someone wise/knowledgeable, to instruct someone." Then there's the noun (usually as a noun suffix) form, which is used more in modern times in compounds or expressions like "health wise," "income wise," "likewise." It developed the sense "manner or way of doing something," from the idea of "knowing how to do something from observation," thus "doing something in a particular way." The other Germanic languages have: German has the verb "wissen" (to  know), another verb "weisen" (to show/point out; the sense being to "show the way to go or do something")^^, the adjective "weise" (wise), and the noun "Weise" (manner, mode, style, way of doing); Low German has the adjective "wies" (wise), the noun "Wies" (manner, way of doing), the verb "weten" (to know, see note ^) and the verb "wiesen" (to show/point); Dutch has the adjective "wijs" (wise), the noun "wijs" (mode, manner), the verb "wijzen" (to point out), the verb "weten" (to know); West Frisian has the verb "witte" (to know), the verb (used more in compounds) "wize" (to show/point out), the adverb "wis" (certainly; that is, something known); Danish has the verb "vis" (to show), the adjective "vise" (wise), the verb "vide" (to know); Icelandic has the verb "vita" (to know), the adjective "vitur" (wise), the verb "vith" (to show); Norwegian has the verb "vet" (to know), the verb "vise" (to show); and Swedish has the verb "vet" (to know), the verb "visa" (to show, point out), the adjective "vis" (wise) and the noun "vis" (manner, way of doing).  

^ The same Old Germanic source also gave Old English the verb "witan," which meant "learn, come to understand from observation." The common German verb "wissen" is really the same word, but long ago, the high Germanic dialects that essentially evolved into modern German underwent sound changes, one of which was the tendency for the "t" sound to become "s" or double "s;" thus Old English "witan" and German "wissen." Another couple of examples: English "kettle," but German "Kessel" (all German nouns are capitalized) and English "hot," but German "heiss."
   
^ ^ There are a multitude of German verbs with various prefixes that use "weisen" as the main component of the compound; for instance, "beweisen," which means "to prove;" that is, "show something to be true." Again, "show through knowledge" is the notion behind the overall meaning.

"We Need Success, Not Excess"

Being in business isn't easy; some people make it, many do not survive for very long. Most Americans want business people to succeed. We aren't rooting for their failure, we want them to do well, and we realize they have invested money, work and time in these ventures. But we've seen an alarming concentration of wealth in the last three + decades, and not among our local grocery stores, service stations, or hardware stores, rather this concentration of wealth has been led by members of the "investment class," a highfalutin sounding expression, the real meaning of which is, "wealthy people." Now, I'm not really against wealthy people per se, but I am against out and out, ruthless, exploitative greed. Greed that knows no bounds or decency towards the many others who also populate this country. The accumulation of wealth has been obscene and counterproductive to the country's stability, a problem I don't need to explain to an increasing number of Americans. They're hurting! 

In response to the concentration of wealth, we've seen conservatives tout tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, as if they need more money, while other parts of their "program" demand cuts to our most economically vulnerable citizens. They've counted on selfishness "trumping" (pun intended) shared responsibility, something that has often sadly proven to be true. While no one knows what Americans will think tomorrow, there are signs the tide "may" be turning. You can only squeeze a disconnected public so far before some people actually begin to feel the pain and they begin to reconnect to others in similar circumstances. As long as Americans pay attention, the conservatives will fail. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, big business and wealthy interests haven't been pouring money into political campaigns and turning common sense on its head so they can pay you more in wages and benefits. Nope, they want the opposite, but unfortunately many Americans have been complicit in their own economic decline by supporting the nonsense. Meanwhile the wealthiest of Americans have been gaining more and more of the economic pie for themselves.

We need watch dogs to keep tabs on business at every level. They're always trying to figure out new gimmicks to separate you from your money, which can then go into their bank accounts. Remember a year or so ago when some banks wanted to charge a fee for some accounts, but many Americans finally stood up and said, "No!" The banks backed down. We need a "Success, not Excess" type of campaign in the country. There has been no shared sacrifice by the upper incomes, but now we've got to make sure they share in sacrifices more than ever, since they've benefited so much in recent times. No more, "we'll raise prices, if we have to increase the minimum wage or provide health care." Let the executives and wealthy stockholders  pay first, not reap the benefits of low wages and benefits. That's the ONLY way to get this country back onto anywhere near an even keel. Call their hands, get in their faces every time they make a move to benefit themselves and not the rest of America. Tell them, "You've had your way and now YOU will pay." Tell lawmakers to quit this tax cut crap for the wealthiest of the wealthy.

Concentration of wealth and power have seen terrible consequences in times past. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia tried for too long to hold onto an outdated system of wealth, privilege and repression. After agreeing to mild "change" in 1905, Nicholas then tried to retract much of that minimal "change." When people then took matters into their own hands in 1917, it wasn't pretty. Nicholas was swept away and he and his entire family were eventually killed, as were others of the Russian nobility. Pay back can be absolute hell.

WORD HISTORY:
Not/Naught/Naughty/Nought-Modern "not" actually stems from a former compound. It goes back to Indo European "ne," which meant "no, not." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the same form, "ne," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ne/na," which then was coupled with "wiht," which meant "creature, being, thing,"^ to give Old English "nawiht," which meant, "nothing," which shortly thereafter  became "noht," and later, "naught" (nothing, zero), a variant spelling of which was "nought" ("zero"). The form "noht" later became "not." Besides meaning "nothing, zero," "naught" also took on the added meaning "not good, sinful, wrong," which then gave us "naughty." All of these various forms have relatives in the other Germanic languages: German has "nicht" (not) and "nichts" (nothing), but German dialects have several variants from the standard form, including: net, nich, nit; Low German has "nich" (not) and "nix" (nothing); Dutch has "niet" (not) and "niets" (nothing); West Frisian has "net" (not) and "neat" (nothing). Apparently the North Germanic languages (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic) do not use forms, although Icelandic has the related "né" (meaning "nor," as in "neither this nor that"). 
 
^ This is still around in modern English as "wight," although it certainly is little used in American English, but just because I've had to use it here, I'll do its history soon. Its German cousin is "Wicht." And by the way, it has nothing to do with the form used in the Isle of Wight.  

Fried Potatoes Sicilian Style

I cut this recipe out of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, apparently in 2002, as they took it from what they call "a good new book" by Clarissa Hyman called "Cucina Siciliana," which means "Sicilian Cuisine," and it was published by Interlink, 2002. The dish is called "Sauteed Rosemary Potatoes With Cherry Tomatoes and Black Olives," and if you want the recipe, that WAS the recipe! Just joking. I love fried potatoes and when I tried this, I was just completely sold. I fix it fairly often. I rarely follow recipes to the letter, and I don't completely follow this one either, as I slice the potatoes, like home fries, rather than use "chunks," which is what the recipe calls for, and I add some fresh hot peppers, like serranos, as well as the black pepper. You certainly could use some hot pepper flakes as a substitute, although fresh hot peppers are now commonly sold in most supermarkets. 

8 medium red-skinned potatoes (you can use other potatoes)
2-3 tablespoons olive oil (I use extra virgin olive oil)
2-3 tablespoons chopped fresh rosemary
4 large cloves of garlic, peeled
pinch of salt
freshly ground black pepper or peperoncino (or any hot chili pepper, to taste, chopped)
12 cherry or grape tomatoes (see text below)
12 black olives, quartered (Kalamata olives are good for this, or Niçoise olives, halved or whole)
fresh parsley

While the author says to peel the potatoes, I don't, I leave the skins on. Cook the potatoes in water for about 12 minutes and drain them well. Slice the potatoes, or cut them into "chunks," as in the actual recipe. Add the olive oil to a medium skillet over medium heat. Add the potatoes, rosemary, garlic, salt, and the hot peppers + black pepper. (While the recipe doesn't say, I chop the garlic.) Stir the potatoes to make sure the other ingredients coat the potatoes. Cook for 10-15 minutes (I lean more to 13-15 minutes), stirring occasionally to keep the potatoes from sticking (I usually add a little more olive oil, too). Add the tomatoes and olives at about the 7-8 minute mark. Again, while the recipe doesn't call for this, after the tomatoes heat up, I usually take a large spoon and mash them down so the liquid mixes in, although sometimes they begin to split open on their own. When finished, the potatoes should be nice and browned and somewhat crisp. Add the parsley just before removing the potatoes from the heat.

Just a GREAT dish, with the browned potatoes, the hint of garlic and rosemary, a little heat, the brininess of the olives and the little tomatoes.

 

 

 

 

 

WORD HISTORY:  

Potato-First, potatoes, like true sweet potatoes (not yams, which came to the New World from Africa) and tomatoes, are from the New World and their popularity as a great source of food only spread to the rest of the world gradually, often by way of Spanish and Portuguese traders. Potatoes became one of the main sources of food in many countries, and in Ireland, the little nation was so dependent on potatoes, a blight on the potato crop in the mid 1800s cost the lives of hundreds of thousands from starvation. Between deaths and emigration (often to the United States), it is estimated that Ireland's population decreased by as much as one quarter during that era. To put that into perspective, imagine a decrease in the current U.S. population by about 80 million. Spanish got the word "patata" from "batata" from one of the Taino dialects of the Caribbean islands. Taino is now largely extinct, as other languages, primarily Spanish, replaced it on the various islands. Originally the word meant "sweet potato," but later the similarly looking (on the outside) white potato had the same word applied to it. English got the word from Spanish in the mid 1500s.

NASA Revenue Stream From The Wealthy

This was first published in August 2013, but like food and water, this article never goes out of style.

There's not enough money on this planet for some of the wealthiest of the wealthy, who are also the greediest of the greedy, and often the most ruthless of the ruthless. NASA could fund some of its operations by selling spaceship rides, because the greediest of the greedy are going to want to see if there's gold or some other valuable substance out there in the great somewhere. Since they don't need money, a better thing would be if they devoted their lives to helping others far less fortunate than themselves, but whether they could EVER do ANYTHING without wanting financial reward to try to satisfy their insatiable egos, is a question to which I'm afraid I already know the answer. Don't fall for their patriotism acts either, as the only insignia they support is this one, "$$$." As to any religious claims, their lives are devoted to their true religious book; that is, to their bank book.

We all know that at times there are true shortages of various products. In the last couple of years, abnormally heavy rainfall in some parts of the country damaged some crops, like the peanut crop, for instance, which drove up the price of these American favorites and the derived peanut butter, although it appears prices have now been declining. Then there was tremendous drought in parts of the country, which affected a number of crops, which in turn affected meat prices.* We may complain, but I think most people understand some of this. The thing I've noticed, as I'm sure you have, is that we're paying more, or the same amount, but for smaller quantities. I just bought a jar of seasoned salt. It was the same brand I've been using, but when I picked it up, I thought, "Why does this seem to be different?" Well, when I got home, I looked at the almost empty jar I still had, and at the new jar, and it was the same price, but for about an ounce less.** I look at eggs, and they're all so old, I'm beginning to wonder if you can get fresh eggs anymore, without some connection to a local farm. So you get old eggs, but they don't want those prices to come down to try to move them faster, until they've virtually hit the expiration date, which is sometimes two months after the eggs were packed! So help me, some eggs are so old, I cracked one and a chicken flew out. 

Anyway folks, something is going to have to give eventually. Widening income disparity is going to bring about another crisis, as the wealthy interests can't keep charging us higher prices when incomes for the poor and middle class are stagnating, or actually declining in many cases. Some of the wealthy reactionaries want to take the country way back in time to keep control of it, as they did up until the 1930s, although of course, they don't want to go back to when many executives made 20 or 30 or 40 times what their workers made, instead of today's executives who make hundreds of times more than the average worker. Remember too, the larger the percentage of income that goes to the wealthy, the less money that goes into Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because contributions to these two programs stop at about $110,000. Income above that amount is not subject to paying into Social Security or Medicare. You see, there are lots of problems that stem from income disparity, but they aren't going to tell you that. Selling NASA space trips sounds better and better, especially since the greed of some of these folks is out of this world.

* As most people know, grains of various types, including corn, are often used to feed animals. When the cost of grain rises, the farmers/ranchers have to pay more to feed their livestock and poultry. Put simply, this increases the price of the meat from these animals, or for products from animals, like eggs or dairy products. Most of these meat/agricultural products are on commodity markets, where the overall prices are set, but many of these products are also subsidized by the government, usually by what are called "price supports." Subsides for such products goes back about a hundred years to a time when there were literally millions of American farms and something like a quarter to a third of Americans either lived on farms or were directly tied to agriculture in some way. The terrible state of American agriculture in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression, as so many Americans were linked to agriculture, including banks, which collapsed in record numbers in agricultural communities. Today, as with many other businesses, there are far, far fewer farms (see note), and the percentage of Americans living on or tied directly to agriculture now "appears" to be in the single digits. The thing is, with prices determined on commodity markets, that means, like it, not like it, the wealthy are setting prices. Surprise, surprise! (Note: It's a bit difficult to find a reliable number for farms in the U.S., although I didn't exactly wear myself out trying to find such a number, either, but as compared to the millions from the days of the 1920s and 1930s, the number "appears" to be in the hundreds of thousands now, but that likely counts consolidation; that is, big farms bought up smaller neighboring farms.)

** In my younger days, there was a little quip about the rock salt companies raising their prices like ten cents a bag (a dime was worth far more back then than today's dime), because the salt mines raised salt thirty cents a ton. Get it? If not, the point was, salt went up thirty cents a ton (2000 lbs.), but the price of a bag of rock salt went up a dime on a 5 lb. bag! You do the math.

WORD HISTORY:
Stream-This noun goes back to Indo European "sreu," which had the idea of "flow." This gave Old Germanic "straumaz," which meant "flow, flowing water, current of water." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "stream" (pronounced stree-am), meaning "flowing water, a current;" thus, "stream." This then became "streem," before the modern version. The verb developed from the noun in the 1200s. The other Germanic languages have: German "Strom" (also used for electrical current), Low German Saxon "Stroom," Dutch "stroom," Frisian "stream" and "streamke," Danish and Norwegian "strøm," Icelandic "straumi" and "straumur," and Swedish  "ström." 

When 'E Pluribus Unum' Meant Something

"E Pluribus Unum" is Latin for "out of many, one." The United States has had periods of shakiness in the "United" part dating clear back to the founding of the nation, as a number of the colonists remained loyal to Britain. How many? Who the hell knows, since Gallup wasn't in business back then, but it all makes sense, because established British rule was bound to have its supporters. Even after the successful severance from Britain, unity remained shaky, as the individual states, which had come out of the individual colonies, pulled in their own directions, and the battle over how much power the national government should have continued, culminating in the biggest breakdown to "E Pluribus Unum" yet, with the Civil War and its aftermath. American involvement in World War One began an era in which a sense of national unity improved, amazingly only 52 years after the end of the bitterly contested and costly Civil War, although Southern resentment continued to linger, expressed most openly by Southern contempt for Republicans, "the Party of Lincoln," and by outward hostility to the substantial Black American population located in the South (most being former slaves, or the children or grandchildren of slaves). The Great Depression and World War Two furthered the sense of national unity and the sense of "we're all in this together" and "we need to help one another," rather than "this doesn't affect me, the hell with it," or "I've got mine, the hell with you," which has translated into the selfish and divisive philosophy of "we're all in this alone," of more recent decades.

There were still intense debates and divisions, along with some way out divisiveness on the fringes, but there wasn't this pervasive "totally destroy the other side," or the, "bring the country down so we can take over," philosophy. The way out stuff was generally marginalized in both parties, because there was a great political middle of the country that provided stability through common national purpose, and many in that middle ground loyally voted Republican or Democratic, but they were also willing to work with the other party in the interest of the nation. Time has eroded our sense of how we need each other, and Korea, and most certainly Vietnam, undermined the nation's sense of common purpose in wartime, as many Americans didn't really much take to the idea of the country being a superpower watchdog for the world, brought about by the U.S. contribution to the winning of World War Two, although the Soviet Union, and then China (then always called "Red China" in America), made Americans uneasy, with the idea that such regimes had to be opposed, before they came knocking at our own front door, a lesson equated with Hitler's behavior leading up to the outbreak of World War Two.

America is not a perfect country, nor has it ever been. Our insecurity seems readily shown when national problems such as homelessness or the lack of national medical care for our citizens are mentioned, only to be met with the slogans "we're the greatest country" and "we have the best health care system in the world," regardless of any facts that contradict the latter. These kinds of slogans are a way of hiding from problems (denial), but the problems persist and hiding from them will not provide one iota of solution to them. Some Americans love to quote the Statue of Liberty verse about "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," but just look at what many are now seeking to do, implement cuts to the poorest of Americans, yet they espouse giving tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy. So much for the "tired and poor." And of course "equality" is another touchy subject for "some" Americans who never seem to realize the privilege they've often enjoyed by having been born of European heritage, although they claim to love the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Oh, and they also often "claim" to be religious, often Christian. I'll be trite, but in all cases "actions speak louder than words." 

Longing for this lost virtue of "the American nation" will not bring it back, although 9/11 temporarily brought many Americans to their senses, but again, it was temporary, and I wonder if Al Gore had been president at that time, or better yet, if some such similar incident happened now with Obama as president, if the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Bachmann, Cruz, Trump, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al, would call for national unity or use the incident to try to destroy the President by inciting hatred and divisiveness? Think about it.

WORD HISTORY:
Roll/Role- "Role" was an offshoot of "roll," but it's meaning was actually derived from the parent word (see below). "Roll" goes back to Indo European "roto," which had the notion of "to turn over or around repeatedly." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "rota," which meant "wheel," and its diminutive form,^ "rotula," gave Latin the verb "rotulare," with the meaning "to roll." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "roeler," with the same basic meaning. English borrowed the word from French during the 1300s as "rollen," and grammatical changes in English soon lopped off the ending leaving us "roll." The noun form has the same basic history, except Latin had a noun "rotulus," which meant "roll of paper, often used for records or documents." This gave Old French "rolle," by then with only the "record, document" meaning. English borrowed the word from French with that same meaning, but the word has expanded in meanings since then, including "dough rolled out in pieces before baking," a usage very common today. Of course the addition of "er" gave English "roller," a device used for rolling out some material like dough or metal. "Role" has the same history as the above words, but the meaning "paper record or document" provided the notion for French "rôle," meaning "a part in a play written on a roll of paper." English borrowed the word from French in the late 1500s or early 1600s. Time has obscured the "written part in a play" idea and the word's meaning has expanded to include "part in a job," and more. Other Germanic languages besides English have borrowed "roll," and, for example, German has "rollen" (verb=to roll) and "Rolle" (noun=role, roll, reel).

^ A diminutive form makes the meaning of a root word (or even a separate word) "smaller" or "more endearing;" thus the Latin word for wheel, "rota," spawned "rotula," which simply means "little wheel." Other examples of diminutives: pig/piglet; duck/duckling; mother/mama/mom/mommy; tiny/teensy/teeny. We also use such in names to show affection or friendship: Margaret/Maggie; Richard/Ricky; Elizabeth/Lizzie; Thomas/Tommy.

Dental Work and Chinese Food

This is a true story from a good many years ago. The guy was very nice, but a little ... well, let me just say, this story tells how he was, and such things were not uncommon for him. He was quite a talker and once he started, you were not likely to get away easily. Sadly he has since passed away, but I still can't help but laugh every time I think of this story.

I was on the elevator when it stopped and this guy got on. He proceeded to tell me that he'd had some kind of dental work done and that his gums were very sore, he couldn't chew properly and that he felt awful. He then said that he was going to the lobby to wait for a food delivery, since he didn't feel like fixing anything for himself. That prompted me to ask, "What are you getting?" He answered, "Chinese." So I said, "Well, that's always good. What are you getting?" He answered, "Cashew Chicken." How I ever kept from bursting out laughing is a mystery to me to this day, but when I got away from him, I let loose and I couldn't stop. I told others who knew him and they laughed just as hard, and all agreed it was just something like what you'd expect him to say. (NOTE: Because I have a number of non-native English speakers who read this blog, I'll explain this further. The man said how sore his gums were, yet he ordered cashew chicken ... cashews aren't the easiest thing to chew; in fact, they are like one of the opposite foods you'd order if you had difficulty chewing.)

WORD HISTORY:
Food-This word, closely related to "fodder," goes back to the Indo European root "pa/pi," which had the notion of "to tend to, to watch over," providing the further idea from these of "to feed." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the noun "fodo," which meant "food." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "foda," which then became "fode," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German has "Futter," which is actually the same word as English "fodder," and indeed, the German word means "food/feed  for animals," and German uses other words for "food;" Low German Saxon has "Födels" (nourishment, food); Dutch has "voedsel" (food, nourishment); West Frisian "fiedsel" (food/feed); Danish "føde" (food/feed); Icelandic has "faeða" (the "ð" basically equals "th", word means "food/feed); Norwegian has "føde" (nourishment); Swedish has "föda" (food, nourishment).   

What We Got With Obama/Part Two, The Bankers and Healthcare

First published in August 2013


While THE major issue when Barack Obama took office was halting the economic plunge, the President faced other issues and the country undoubtedly had unrealistic super high expectations, more so from the center, to the left of center, to the far left, on the political spectrum. Campaigning on certain issues and promising certain things in an initial campaign is one thing, but if you win, people are actually going to expect that you try to do the things you campaigned on. Both major American political parties are coalitions with various factions forming a part of the whole. For Obama and Democrats, they faced a number of choices as to how to proceed after the "stimulus" measure was passed. There has been a particularly tight lipped inner circle around this president, and we'll have to wait for someone to break the code of silence, either accidentally or in some "tell all," otherwise we'll have to wait until Obama leaves office, when "presumably" some will talk, to find out many things, so this is just a guess, but I'd say his economic team correctly told him that there was only so much he could do about the economy, and that with the stimulus in place and the Federal Reserve working more behind the scenes, that it would take time for the crisis to ease and then for recovery to begin, and that it would be a long road back. So what to do next?

Not only was the country in a depressed mood over the economic situation, Americans were angry at the many moneygrubbing shenanigans (I'm being kind here, because it was outright criminal, or should have been, except they got laws changed) that had helped to bring about the crisis, the soaring number of foreclosures, the plunging economy and the fast escalating number of unemployed. These actions had been orchestrated by the nation's financial sector and there were calls for reforms to curb the many abuses and schemes concocted by elements of that sector. These schemes, coupled with huge salaries and bonuses paid to executives in finance, made action on financial sector matters a high priority to many Americans, in my opinion, and even some Republicans were outraged, although they seemed more outraged with efforts by President Obama to halt the economic slide and with his birth certificate, than with financial sector abuses. Democrats controlled a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives 255 to 179 (one vacant)* and a majority of the U.S. Senate 57 Democrats + 2 independents (who caucused  with the Democrats) to 41 Republicans.** Symbolism in politics is important, I'd say especially so in the ultra modern era, when information is on cable television and on the Internet within seconds, or even carried in real time. In my opinion, a couple of the President's choices for his economic team sent the wrong message, unless of course he meant to send a comforting word to the bankers, Wall Street and others in the financial sector. The choices of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner put two men with strong ties to Wall Street, banking deregulation and deregulation of financial services, part of which included the non regulation of "derivatives," in notable positions in the new administration.*** Summers has often been touted as "a brilliant economist;" whatever the hell that means, but I'm not sure the President needed a "brilliant economist" to tell him to pump money into an economy that had lost trillions. This was not new economic policy, and even some Republicans over time came to accept the need to use such measures to counter downturns. Ronald Reagan spent money like a broken water main, all the while telling gullible Americans how he was against deficit spending,**** a sort of "don't pay attention to my actions, just listen to what I say." Through the decades though, many Republicans and business people have opposed deficit spending (unless they're in trouble) dating back to the Great Depression, often because they fear some "addiction," but then again, if you are possibly dying and in terrible pain, should the doctor say, "Sorry, I can't give you narcotics, you might get addicted, but don't worry, once you die it will 'kill' the pain. Ah ... sorry about that, but the pun IS intended ."

President Obama made a crucial decision to first pursue the reform of American's huge and complicated  health care sector (complete, for better or for worse, with many entrenched "interests"), before pursuing financial system reform. The decision was flawed to say the least. Yes, the decision was bold, but the ensuing negotiation over the measure was not as bold, and the early compromises over the stimulus and in health care reform earned the President the reputation of being quick to compromise, often seemingly with himself. Certainly the President's advisers had to know how divisive a fight would develop over this decision, although the White House seemed stunned and unprepared by the ferocity of the attacks. Further, the political advisers had to know that health care reform was not a high priority for most Americans at that time; after all, both parties use pollsters to gauge public opinion. Republicans, hammered with losses at the polls in the 2006 and 2008 elections, connected to unpopular former President George W. Bush and his policies, which were linked to the economic meltdown, and tainted by Republican politicians' sex scandals***** saw a path to new life, and they took it with vigor and vengeance. An expanding conservative movement called the Tea Party had already been active from early in Obama's term by organizing protests, where people waved tea bags (in representation of the Boston Tea Party) and where some openly carried firearms (presumably loaded) and some others dressed in apparel from the 1700s; a pretty clear indication the century to which these folks, at least, want to return. The President's health care decision provided a boost to his opponents like no other, as the previously dispirited conservatives rallied to defeat the President at all costs, although the blueprint for the reform came from former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and elements of the proposal had been previously touted by none other than Newt Gingrich and the conservative organization the Heritage Foundation.******

The rancorous health care debate carried a heavy political cost to the President and Democrats, as well as to reform of the financial sector, as the delay gave special interests time to regroup from the financial meltdown and to marshal their lobbying forces to take on proposed changes. The political disarray and public confusion over the health care law also allowed opponents of financial reform to use public anger at the President and Democrats to their favor. The massive amount of attack ads by conservative groups reinforced public fears and disapproval of the health care law, as the White House and Democrats could never concisely explain the  law; largely because, there IS no concise way to explain the law covering such a vast part of the American economy. Change always creates anxiety, and conservatives exploited that anxiety. It was far easier for conservatives to hammer away at parts of the law in ads to create doubt and fear, and to pick it apart, as every segment of American society would be affected by the law in some way. Day after day the spectacle played out on television screens and on radio as the attack ads mounted. Progressive groups, including unions, were, in my opinion, never totally sold on the health care law that emerged, but they rallied to the cause to keep Barack Obama's presidency from going down in flames early on. Further disappointment would come to progressives when the President scrapped the "public option" from the reform legislation. This was a provision that would have permitted non insured individuals to choose a government sponsored insurance plan in competition with private insurance companies' plans, something that likely would have lowered costs substantially. I'm sure the White House would argue that in order to keep insurance companies from actively opposing the reform, they had to drop the provision, which just further shows how complex the overall reform was. Even with progressive support, opponents far outspent supporters of the law, which was clearly reflected in polls showing the law decisively unpopular, giving opponents another angle of attack: "They're trying to ram this law through against the wishes of the American people." There were certainly many distortions and outright lies, but when have American political campaigns (and that's what this was) ever been truthful and fair? Certainly the White House should have expected such, and while the President seemed to be the only trooper in the game for the pro-reform side, and he performed superbly in some instances, even when taking face-to face questions from congressional Republicans, the law remained highly unpopular with the public.

Meanwhile, the banks that had been dubbed "too big to fail" during the initial part of the economic meltdown, became even larger, and financial sector CEOs never spent one day in jail, let alone prison, bringing about the saying that they were "too big to jail." The general defense by the CEOs was that they hadn't known about the risky and complicated financial ventures made by THEIR companies. Of course none made any attempt to therefore return their salaries or bonuses. While to me the amounts paid these individuals was, and is, obscene, the fact that they essentially admitted to incompetence ("they didn't know," not that I buy that explanation for one second) should have been cause for immediate dismissal, but with corporate boards stacked with like-minded members, and with super wealthy stockholders owning most of the stock in these entities, that just hasn't happened. So they got to have it both ways: they got huge salaries and bonuses while being incompetent, and they didn't go to prison for all of the manipulation and deceit in the industry. Further, their ravaged companies were bailed out, stabilized, and made even larger by America's taxpayers. America ... the land where crime DOES pay! And let's not forget, while all of the worst came during the administration of George W. Bush (although as I noted elsewhere in this article, much of the deregulation came under Democratic President Bill Clinton), the aftermath took place under Democrat Barack Obama and with both houses of Congress under Democratic control (at least until after the 2010 election, when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and the Democratic majority in the Senate was considerably lessened).

Grades:
Obama on agenda setting after the stimulus: "F"
Obama on health care reform "I" =incomplete, as the law is not yet fully implemented
Obama on curtailing the economic power of elements of the financial sector: "F"    

More on financial reform in "Part Three" .... 

* The breakdown by party affiliation at any given time for the House can be complicated because of deaths, resignations, or appointments to other positions. The thing to remember is, the House operates on a simple majority vote. 

** Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector had been elected as a Republican in prior elections, but switched to the Democratic Party in the spring of 2009 giving Democrats 58 plus the two independents to 40 Republicans, but Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy was frequently away from the Senate with serious illness and Minnesota Democratic Senator Al Franken was involved in a contested election outcome that was not settled until the summer of 2009, after which he took office, so the Democratic majority was not quite what it seemed on paper. The Senate has its own rules and most, but not all, legislation requires at least 60 votes to pass, so it is important to note that Democrats did not always have the necessary 60 votes from among their own party caucus members, again, which included the two independents.

*** Summers served in the Clinton administration and actually became Secretary of the Treasury late in Clinton's second term. He had previously been Deputy Secretary under Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, another proponent of deregulation. He later became President of Harvard University, where the university got involved in risky and speculative derivative markets, which led to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to the university. It's all far too complicated to explain here, but the main thing is, Summers approved the university getting involved in derivatives, the non regulation of which he had supported while in the Clinton administration (the overall legislation which included non regulation passed Congress and was signed by Clinton late in 2000). Summers also supported the law to essentially repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, a law passed and implemented during the Great Depression to separate traditional commercial banking, like checking and savings accounts, auto loans, home loans, etc, and the far riskier investment banking, which involved investment in various stocks, bonds and commodities. This law too passed Congress and was signed by Bill Clinton in 1999. For more information on this law see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/03/understanding-crisis-part-three.html 

**** For more on government deficits, see my article:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/02/gop-keynesians-in-disguise.html

***** Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada was involved in an affair with the wife of one of his administrative aides, who was a campaign staff worker herself. The whole matter was complicated by attempts to keep the affair quiet by providing work and money to the couple. Ensign eventually resigned, but not until 2011. Then Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina, was "missing" for a number of days, supposedly on a hiking trip in the Appalachian Mountains. He obviously failed geography in school, as it turned out he was in Argentina with a woman with whom he was in a relationship (Sanford was married). The South Carolina legislature later censured Sanford. (Censure= strong disapproval.) Let's see, Appalachian starts with "A" and Argentina starts with "A," maybe that's where he got confused. Also a little while before this, Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig had been arrested for soliciting sex in an airport mens' room. He thought of resigning, but then changed his mind and remained in office until his term expired, which only kept the matter lingering in the news and in jokes in comedy acts. During his career, Craig had supported anti-gay measures, but I guess he took a page from Reagan's deficit playbook, "don't pay attention to what I do, just listen to what I say."

****** For more detailed information on previous Republican support of provisions of what now is called  "Obamacare," see: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

WORD HISTORY:
Cleave-English has two words "cleave;" this is the word meaning "to split, to cut." It goes back to Indo European "gleubh," which had the meaning "to cut." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kleubanan," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "cleofan," with the meaning "to split." which then became "cleven," before the modern version. The derived noun "cleaver" retains the meaning as "a sharp ax-like implement for splitting large slabs of meat." The past tense form of "cleave" gave modern English "clove;" as in "clove of garlic;" that is, "separated, split pieces of garlic," and the participle form, "cloven," is often used for an animal's hoof, or of feet in general. The other Germanic languages have: German has "klieben" (now used much more in Bavaria and Austria for "to split/to cleave logs or wood"), and German also has the now archaic noun "Kliebeisen" (literally "cleaving iron;" that is, "cleaver"), Low German Saxon has "klöven," Dutch has "klieven," Danish and Norwegian (dialect?) has "kløve," Icelandic "kljúfa," and Swedish has "klyva." All these forms retain the same general meaning as their English relative, "to split, to cleave."  

The Psychology of the Egomaniacs and the Race to the Bottom

Psychology is a part of all of our lives, because we have minds to think with, and all of our actions are based upon thought, even though with some it may seem with less thought than for others. None of us is truly "sane," whatever the hell that actually means, but some have "problems" that extensively affect their own lives and the  lives of others on a regular basis. Most societies have laws against rape, for instance, and people who seem to have the psychological need to "force themselves" on others are held accountable for those actions, regardless of their seeming need to do such things. Just because we have psychological needs doesn't mean society doesn't try to put controls on those needs. Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of the 1960s comedy "Gilligan's Island,"  had lots of psychology in his little comedy about seven people stranded on a small Pacific island. One of the seven main characters was Thurston Howell III, a multimillionaire, who in today's dollars would be a multi billionaire. Mr. Howell couldn't stop thinking about money, even though he had long before passed the amount any human being would have needed to live a very comfortable life. Even though the little group was on an uncharted island and in need of rescue, Mr. Howell schemed, even at times against his own wife, as he just couldn't stop wanting money and exercising the power that money gave him. Accustomed to having his own way, on the island he found that money could not always be as powerful a force as in regular society, because there was nothing to buy, although that didn't stop him from trying to gain more wealth through scheming, bribery and exploitation. Mr. Howell often thought he should have been the leader of the group of castaways, because of his wealth and the large number of corporations he owned. Government scared him, as overall it had the power to control him at times, and he once mentioned that he had had a dream about ordering the "wholesale arrest of the Supreme Court." In spite of Mr. Howell's sometimes ruthless behavior, he had a connection to reality and at times he wanted to be loved and respected by the others in the group, and he once drew up a will dividing his fortune among the castaways. He also was fearful that he would be seen as weak if he did good deeds; a frightening thought in itself, if you think about it. Even on the island, however, Mr. Howell's ego and sense of privilege couldn't get away from being reined in by law, as in one episode a conflict breaks out over the ownership of a chest, thought to contain great treasure, which had been discovered by Gilligan when he was doing to job for Mr. Howell,* but the group holds a "hearing" on the case, presided over by the Professor, as judge. So Mr. Howell was not a totally ruthless money grubber all of the time, and his insecurity was demonstrated by his need to have his Teddy Bear to cuddle up with at night.

In more recent times, the egomaniacs in American society have sought every possible way to avoid paying decent wages and offering employees benefits. Before you say, "Well Randy, I work for 'XYZ,' and my employer has provided decent pay and benefits for many years," ask yourself and check out why the employer has done such. Remember, while not all employers strive to be Ebenezer Scrooge in exploiting their employees, many do not just "give" good pay and benefits, although there are decent employers in this country who have consciences and who want to do the right thing, with occasional lapses. My guess is, there are likely more such than we ever hear about, perhaps because they aren't in need of the acclamation. And I don't want to imply that there aren't times of contentiousness between management and labor in those companies. Many years ago there was a furniture company where the warehouse men and the deliverymen were all Teamsters. I knew just about all of them and I know the things they said about the company and it's owners. You're probably thinking it was all bad, but it wasn't. Quite to the contrary, they mainly said good things about the primary owner, a lady (I knew her somewhat), although some remarks about some in her family were not quite as nice.** Over the years there was a strike or two, but there was never a lot of animosity, and certainly no hatred. In fact, one employee was found to have been drinking on the job, but the company didn't fire him, and he was just given a warning. Unfortunately, the guy didn't learn his lesson and when he did the same thing, the consequence was his termination. It was at that time that the relatively good relations between the Teamster employees and the company showed themselves, as one Teamster, a very good union man, told the fired man off in my presence, even telling him how the company had given him another chance that he then abused.

Why can't all management and employee relations be more like the above? Well we're back to psychology and especially to the superego-types in the business world who have taken over and driven the agenda for many sectors of the business world. They have done everything possible to fatten their already fat bank accounts, including moving plants and jobs overseas to get around American labor and American regulation; that is, law. It's hurt our country folks and most of you know it, whether you'll admit it or not. Some industries, like clothing, are now heavily located overseas in low wage countries, where they may well be owned by American corporations and then the finished products are shipped to the U.S. Such maneuvers has put pressure on American wages/benefits, forcing many Americans to have to look to buy cheaper foreign-made products, because they don't always have the money to buy American products. Of course the corporations and their minions say it's because American workers want to make too much money, or that federal, state or local regulations drive up costs, or a combination of both, forcing corporations to seek lower wages and less regulation elsewhere. Let's see ... when was the last time you heard that it might have something to do with corporate executives and the billionaire/millionaire stockholders wanting "more money?" The argument is NEVER framed in that way, as if these superegos are too important to question. This has truly become a "race to the bottom." Folks, you might think you won't be affected, but with this crap going on and on, it will HAVE to affect you too, if it hasn't already, and that includes if you're a small business owner, as the less money Americans have, the less money they have to spend at your business; thus, the less business for you. As I've said here before, the superegos haven't gone to all of the effort of moving production elsewhere, supporting anti-labor candidates and anti-labor agendas, just so they can pay you MORE; they want to pay you LESS! That's the whole point. Don't be in denial until it's too late!

* The conflict in this episode shows the technical aspects of law, as Mr. Howell "claims" ownership of the chest, because Gilligan was doing work for him. The Skipper, who handles Gilligan's side of the case, argues that Gilligan owns the chest, because he did the work for Mr. Howell as a favor and wasn't paid.

** There will always be a certain amount of contentiousness between labor and management, as, by and large, we humans don't much like to be told what to do, but it often also has a great deal to do with "how" management does the telling. I guess that's just the "psychology" to it.

WORD HISTORY:
Bleach-This goes back to Indo European "blehg," which had the notion of "shine, pale, bright." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "blaikjanan," a verb form which meant "to make pale, to make bright" (in some of its other Indo European relatives, the Indo European form took on meanings having to do with fire from the "bright, shine" idea). This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "blaecan," which meant "to make white or pale, to whiten," or in the modern sense, "to bleach." There were noun and adjectival forms in Old English such as the noun "blaece," which meant "skin ailment that made the skin dry and pale,"^ another noun "blaeco," which meant "paleness," and the adjective "blaec," which meant "pale," but it seems the modern noun (for the bleach product) was derived from the verb form. The other Germanic languages have: German "bleichen" (to bleach), "bleich" (pale) and "Bleichmittel" (bleach); Low German has "bleeken/bleken" (to bleach) and "Bleik" (bleach); Dutch "bleken" (to bleach) and "bleekmiddel" (bleach); Swedish "bleka" (to bleach) and "blekmedel" (bleach); Danish "bleg" (pale) and  "blegemiddel" (bleach); Icelandic "bleikja" (light/pale color) and "bleikur" (pale); Norwegian "blek" (pale) and "blekemiddel" (bleach);^^ I could not find any forms in Frisian.   

^ Some have also applied this English term to leprosy, a disease much disputed in what it meant long ago and it may well have meant different things to different people, including eczema, dermatitis and syphilis.

^^ The compound form of the noun in use in some other Germanic languages is a form of "middle" as the second part of the word. It is equivalent to English "medium," a word borrowed from Latin, which besides the literal meaning "in between," also means "a means to convey or do something, an agent;" thus those Germanic compound nouns essentially mean "agent/substance for bleaching, whitening." So, it is likely that had "medium" not been borrowed by English, we too might use a form of "middle" in certain compounds. By the way, Latin "medium" shares the same Indo European origin as the Germanic form which produced English "middle" and "mid."