Talk About Tolerance, This Is Tolerance

Back in the latter part of the 1970s a group of American Nazis announced plans to hold a political demonstration in Chicago. The city required a large insurance bond be paid to cover the possible damages that would result from such a provocative demonstration. The amount of the bond effectively terminated the Nazi plans to go forward, but they then decided to organize a march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, an area where not only a substantial part of the community was Jewish, but in those days a large number of Jewish immigrants were survivors of Nazi atrocities and concentration camps in Europe. In an effort to tone down the Nazi march, a local court said the Nazis could not display swastikas, nor wear Nazi Party uniforms, as these things were essentially equivalent to provoking violence.* The whole issue garnered national and even international attention, even more so when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the court ruling as a violation of the First Amendment (specifically the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble). The main attorney for the ACLU was Burton Joseph, who was Jewish and a partner in a Chicago law firm. While it's been so many years ago, my recollection is, a number of other Jewish ACLU attorneys openly supported Joseph's view. After a number of hearings, including by the U.S. Supreme Court, and much coverage by the international media, the march was allowed to go forward, along with the display of swastikas and the wearing of Nazi uniforms. Anti-Nazi demonstrations were organized by many Americans across the country, and the Nazis then asked to change the march back to Chicago, which was granted.

While such actions by the ACLU have not always been popular over the years, and this one was not popular with many Americans, as veterans' groups, among others, also protested, as I recall, such legal challenges bring focus to various decisions, along with the accompanying discussions, sometimes very heated discussions. Democracy is not easy, and I suppose all of us at one time or another would like to stop someone with whom we disagree from expressing contrary opinions. The question is always, "how much freedom do we want?" There are limits to freedom, as for example, we don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, just for the hell of it. Ah, that's not a direct quote.

For Jewish attorneys to defend the right of Nazis to march tells you just how much these attorneys appreciate the law. It certainly doesn't mean they liked Nazis, but they loved the law. To be quite honest, I'm not sure I could do such a thing, but this is how you defeat the crazies and the anti-democracy elements. We can't be so insecure that we are afraid of differing viewpoints. Talk about tolerance, this is tolerance and a respect for law which should earn respect from all of us; of course, there are those racists and haters out there ...

* These are my words, not the court's words, but this was essentially the argument.

WORD HISTORY:
Hate-This word goes back to Indo European "khedo," which had the notion of "strong emotional feeling." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hatojan(an)," which became the more specific "to hate," in Germanic. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hatian," which then became "haten," before the modern version. The noun was derived from the Old Germanic form "hatiz," which then gave Old English "hete." Other Germanic languages have (noun then verb): German "Hass" and "hassen," Low German and Dutch "haat" and "haten," West Frisian "hate" and "haatsje," Danish "had" and "hade," Icelandic "hata" (same for noun and verb), Norwegian and Swedish "hate" (same for both noun and verb, with the ending "e" pronounced like "ah").

Tolerance On Mental Issues Often Easier To Talk About Than To Practice

Tolerance can be a tough thing, especially when it comes to some of the behavior of people with mental illness. First, none of us is really "sane," whatever the hell that really means, and we often exhibit various hangups, pet peeves, or annoying habits; at least, annoying to some. Let's be honest, at times some of the "annoyed" may be the ones with problems. Other people may have somewhat stronger symptoms, but they are still essentially harmless. I managed various apartments for a number of years, and in the 1990s, one lady talked about how then Vice President Al Gore called her every week to ask how she was doing. A male tenant told me in 1987 that then Vice President George Bush (Senior, if you will) had called him to ask if he would come to Washington to manage his presidential campaign.* Hey, at least both tenants claimed conversations with vice presidents, not with the actual man in the Oval Office. Also in the mid to late 1980s another man, then likely around 70 (I just can't recall) and a veteran of World War Two and Korea, if I remember correctly, was just delightful to be around, as he was so friendly, and he had a big, fluffy white beard, but when he failed to take his medication, he could scare the hell out of some people. When in this condition, he would neither bathe nor wash his clothes, and his presence on the elevator was evident long after he had exited. He would walk up to people, I mean almost nose to nose, and say, "Hello!" The far more serious problem was, he would walk right out of the building and into the street, without looking, and it was a very busy street. He had an attorney who took care of his affairs, and I called him about the man's turn in behavior. He had him taken to the VA hospital, but they released him after just a couple of days, saying "he was okay," which proved to be untrue, and his release prompted me to ask his attorney, "Who treats the doctors there?" The attorney laughed like hell. The situation got so bad though, and we were so fearful he would be hit and killed, the attorney moved him elsewhere, to a quieter area. I'd say in about 2000, I learned that my boss at that time knew and lived right by the man's attorney. He stopped and talked to the attorney, who said he remembered me quite well, but that his client had passed away just a few years before. Even though he caused me much concern for his safety, I still fondly remember the man to this day.

Those are just a couple of examples, but then there were those who were far more difficult to deal with because of their problems. One man had a fixation with the building maintenance man, whom he constantly accused of entering his apartment and leaving dirty marks on his floor or small nicks in his kitchen counter. He once took me to his apartment and pointed out a nick so small, I virtually needed a magnifying glass to see it, but such can be the case with people with obsessions like this. The man was so absorbed by cleanliness, that in his mind, any little mark or piece of dirt in his apartment had to be the result of the maintenance man's illegal entry. We actually had another tenant, a woman, who called the police and told them her apartment had been robbed. When one of the officers asked her how she knew this, she answered, "Because I had three dollars on my table, and when I came home, there was only one left." The officer told her she was lucky to have had such a considerate thief, a remark she pondered before expressing her agreement. Not long after this, a man with the Social Security Administration told me the lady had come to his office about some matter, and that she had used the restroom, only to squirt the contents of her colostomy bag all over the walls and fixtures. She was in her 50s at that point, but she had been a school teacher, and she was very well versed in many things, but something had short-circuited for whatever reason, causing her behavior to take the twists and turns which made her so difficult to deal with. She once went to her mailbox, got her mail, came into the lobby in front of some people, tore up her mail, threw it on the floor, then came to me and said someone had broken into her mailbox and tore up her mail.

Another man stayed relatively to himself, but spent much of his time listening to radio and television talk shows, which seemed to get him worked into a nasty frenzy at times over certain issues. He would tell people how certain groups should be killed, or deserved to die. He had won a fair sum of money through the state lottery and was retired, and he moved to an actual house in another neighborhood. About ten years later there was a report about a standoff with police by a man in a house who had fired several shots at some people. I can't remember if any of the people were killed or wounded, but the police eventually shot and killed the man. It was the former tenant of the apartment building. A lady tenant suffered from paranoia and put duct tape around the outside of her apartment door. This was several years before the anthrax scare of 2001/02, when the use of duct tape for such self defense became more common. Her taping of the door wasn't the problem, but she continually accused the man who lived in the apartment above her of trying to kill her. The man bothered no one from what I could tell, and he was always respectful to me when I talked with him. The woman used bleach throughout her apartment to kill ah ... whatever it was she was trying to kill, and the bleach smell in her apartment was enough to give you a nosebleed, if she had you come into the unit. One summer she swore the man above her had put poison into her air conditioner. In reality, the humidity had caused that typical odor that air conditioners get in such weather, but the smell is usually on the outside. It turned out she had been opening her window and pouring bleach down onto the air conditioner, as she'd been fearful her "notorious neighbor" would try to get her through the ac unit. This particular building was a Section 8 property for elderly and disabled people.** She certainly had mental problems enough to qualify her, but her behavior toward others, especially toward the man living above her, was so bad that only so much can be tolerated; after all, other tenants have a right to be left alone. Whether she moved out on her own or had her lease terminated by the incoming management, I can't recall (the owner of the company I worked for was part owner of this building, but one of the other owners bought him out). A man in the same building, with similar problems, would report that people were watching him, because they came from way down the hall past his apartment (each door had a peep hole). No one was watching him, they were simply tenants going to and from the garbage chute area, which was near his apartment. I had a similar case with a guy at another building, but he said people were always gathered outside his door talking about him. His apartment was located close to the elevators and people actually stood there, and yes they talked with one another, but I doubt it was about him. This man was a bit scary, as he wore camouflage clothing and was a total loner, who didn't speak to anyone. Now none of these things is a crime, but there had been some high profile shootings in the country during that time period, with a couple involving guys in camouflage clothing. He had some issues with his next door neighbor, which brought both men complaining to me. The next thing I knew, I received a summons from the city prosecutor, who wanted to question me about a complaint filed by this man against me. The specifics of his complaint were not in the summons. I went, along with the company attorney, but the assistant prosecutor would not allow our attorney into the meeting room, as he said the tenant had agreed to talk over the matter. So the attorney waited in the outer office. The guy told the assistant prosecutor that he had heard his neighbor (the one he had troubles with) and me planning to kill him, cut up his body, put the pieces in the trunk of my car and throw the pieces along the side of the road. The matter was sheer nonsense. I had a hatchback, I didn't have a trunk! I actually made that joke and the assistant prosecutor kind of chuckled, as he had heard the guy's story and knew he had mental issues. It was all dismissed, of course, but it prompted me to check with the city police department, as the guy was some sort of "auxiliary." I found out from one of the officers in charge of that program, that these "auxiliaries" helped during parades and other public gatherings at times, but that they were in no way police officers. He also told me that the guy had complained similarly about his landlady before moving to our building. I told him about the summons and the nonsense accusations, as after all, should this guy have been doing anything for the city involving public safety, even if it was voluntary?

Another woman who had mental issues left her water run and overflow from her bathroom down onto tenants below. This wasn't a one time accident, but it happened a few times, bringing calls from one of the property owners for her eviction, which was pursued in the legal manner. I felt sorry for her, but I also felt sorry for those who had had damage done to their belongings. Well I got a call from her sister, who called me all sorts of names, and who wanted to know who would take care of her mentally ill sister. When I said, "You're her sister," she seemed astonished that anyone would think she should have to take care of HER sister. While this is not a known fact, my "impression" was, the sister wanted someone else to take the burden of her sister's mental problems, that's what concerned her. The system is terribly flawed folks. Apartment buildings are not mental facilities and the management personnel are not mental health professionals, but some people with relatives who have mental disabilities at times think because of subsidized housing, their relative will have a place to live. That's true to an extent, but if the relative is not completely capable of taking care of themselves, or if their mental problems cause them to disturb others, the property will have no choice but to evict that person.*** Understand, while some people don't want their relatives, some people CANNOT take care of their mentally ill relatives, for any variety of reasons, like age, illness, or income, so, in either case, off the person goes to some subsidized property. If they are evicted because of problems, they go to another property, so it's likely, although not a certainty, that the same or similar problems will happen again. Without properties willing to accept such people, they go to the streets, where often there are all sorts of temptations (like drugs, alcohol, bad company) for them to cause further problems, perhaps even severe problems (like aggressive panhandling, robbery, assaults, etc.).

Just a day or two ago, I saw on the news about a lady with a son with developmental problems complaining about police grabbing the boy to stop his flailing at others. She said the boy's doctors said he shouldn't be grabbed, because it will cause him to become even more violent (I'm not sure if that was the word she used, but you get the point). A police officer then replied that while officers are somewhat trained to handle some difficult people, they have to act to protect others. I agree. I understand this is the woman's son, so there is tremendous emotion involved, but police, security personnel, the public, can't be trained in every possible scenario to handle people whose mental state is in some way impaired.

Finally, some people get annoyed at the behavior of others who are not harming anyone, like for instance, one tenant once told me about how it bothered them to no end that another tenant didn't speak to them. My answer was, "LEAVE HIM ALONE! He isn't bothering you, go about your business and let him go about his business." I understood her desire to be friendly, but some situations are better left alone. Don't be a glutton for punishment.  

Human beings come into conflict over a variety of things. The question for all of is, "Am I upset with another person for what they are doing to me, or others?" Or, "Am I upset over something another person is doing that I just don't like personally, but the person is doing no one any harm?" Further, and I suppose, much deeper, how do we handle some of the situations I noted in the stories above? I don't know the answers. I did this article to hopefully get some people thinking about these things, and perhaps they could offer some possible realistic solutions. Nothing will be perfect, but based upon just the experiences I've cited here, what do we do? Hire maintenance people and property management personnel who have degrees in psychology? One thing I believe we need, and it won't satisfy some, is a return to mental health facilities for truly troubled patients. Yes, we're going to have to pay for them, but we're paying in other ways now.

* George Bush was then expected to mount a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988.

** Not all of the stories I have related above were about this particular building, which required a person to be low income elderly or disabled (any adult age) to qualify to live there. Some of the stories, including the one about the man who went to the VA hospital, and the man later killed by police for firing on some people, have to do with two market rate apartment buildings I managed. These properties required tenants to have sufficient income to rent an apartment. I also want to emphasize, the vast majority of tenants in all three buildings were nice, decent and often hardworking people who rarely, if ever, bothered anyone. Unfortunately, sometimes it only takes one or two people to disrupt the lives of many. Naturally the people in the subsidized building were poor, often through little, if any, fault of their own, but being poor is NOT a crime, and one lady had been severely injured, was partially paralyzed, and was confined to a wheelchair, so she received disability, but she continued with her life, a very brave lady indeed.

*** Another disclaimer: not all people with mental illness cause such problems as the few examples I've cited here. I had many tenants with mental issues, but they were fine tenants, so mental illness does NOT mean these same, or similar problems will happen.

WORD HISTORY:
Bold-While uncertain, this word "seems" to go back to the Indo European root "bhel/bhol," which meant "to swell, to blow up, as in 'inflate'). This gave its Old Germanic offspring "balthaz," which meant "strong, sturdy," from the notion of something inflated or swollen made it strong or sturdy. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "bald" (nothing to do with a person's head) and "beald," depending upon dialect, and meaning "courageous, strong," but also with a secondary meaning of "impudent," presumably from the notion of "strength or courage giving one the ability to speak or act without shame or fear of offending," and also a further meaning that has died out in English of "fast, quick," perhaps from the idea of "strength or courage take one forward with speed." Later the two Old English forms became "bold," which has remained as such for many centuries. Many forms in the other Germanic languages have died out, but of those remaining: German has "bald" (meaning "soon," from the idea of "quickness," no longer present in the English meaning, but German has lost the "strong, courageous" meaning), Dutch "boud" (meaning "courageous"), and Swedish "båld" (meaning "bold, proud').

The Time Warner Cable-Comcast Merger

There's a good chance you are a customer of one of these huge corporations, either Time Warner Cable or Comcast. I am. I received an email from that company and before I even opened it, I set out what I figured was in it: "This merger is for our customers, it will benefit you, blah, blah, blah." Remember folks, everything in American business is about selling something, legit or not, including how terribly concerned super wealthy CEOs, other executives and big stockholders are about you, their customers. Let me tell you this folks, this merger, if approved, is about ONE THING and only ONE THING, MONEY! Money for some of the wealthiest people in the country and in the world. It is not about ANYTHING ELSE. "If," and I seriously doubt this will result, it truly benefits the rest of us in any way, that will be pure coincidence. Time Warner Cable was once part of Time Warner, but it has been independent for a few years. Comcast, the largest media company in the world, as well as the largest cable provider in the U.S., owns NBC/Universal.*

Both Comcast (its cable, internet and phone services) and Time Warner Cable (it also has cable, internet, and phone services) have poor customer service ratings from consumers. Cable companies have been raising prices for years, much to the anger of their customers, and if this merger is approved, with more concentration in that industry, watch out! "We have to raise prices, because we're working on new innovations and ...." The thing is, the owners don't want to pay for any of this, they want you to pay, with extra profits tacked on for them, just to make things worth their while. Nope, no "just the cost of doing business" for these greedy bastards. You know, they won't do anything without being able to make enough money to circle the globe at least twice with hundred dollar bills, but you're supposed to work for less, and don't go complaining about it either, you moocher! Remember too, when you hear the term, "corporate profit," that likely has little to do with you, except how the execs are holding down your wages and/or benefits, but it has loads to do with how much more the wealthy are raking in, further adding to the concentration of wealth with the top earners.

A few years ago, the banking fee, by Bank America, if I remember correctly, was stopped because Americans finally took action. Wealthy interests and corporations have taken over our country. To get it back and to get some balance restored will require action, not just complaining to one another. The big money people count on us taking no action. They know people complain and that many Americans hate their guts, but they also count on Americans whining and bellyaching, but in the end, that we will sit on our asses and do nothing, which is what happens in the overwhelming number of cases. What will we do in the case of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger?

* NBC/Universal owns: NBC, NBCSN (NBC Sports Network), the Golf Channel, Telemundo, "E" (Entertainment Television), USA Network, Syfy Channel, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo Channel, the Weather Channel, Universal Pictures, numerous theme parks in the U.S. and overseas, and several other entities.

WORD HISTORY:
Merge-This goes back to Indo European "mezg," which had the notion of "dip, place in water, dive." This gave Latin "mergere," as the "r" sound replaced the "z," in a process called "rhotacism." The general meaning, however, remained the same. English borrowed the word from Latin in the first half of the 1600s and its meaning gradually changed to "to join, to combine," perhaps from the notion of "joining an object in liquid." The derived "submerge" retains the original meaning of "dip, dive, plunge."

The Spies Among Us; Your Personal Info

Below is the link to the "60 Minutes" website and a segment of that show from Sunday, March 9, 2014. "60 Minutes" is a long time and highly popular CBS news program, and the show did a segment on "data brokers;" that is, on companies which compile information on YOU. The segment is about 15 minutes long, and you will be amazed at what you learn is going on with YOUR information, without YOUR knowledge, or YOUR permission. If you think Uncle Sam's been snooping on you, wait until you see this. Like the government's NSA spying, ah, I mean data collection, the intentions of any of these information gathering operations are not likely to conform neatly with the purported ideals of the operations. Information is seen by real live human beings, who then can't automatically forget what they've seen, just to conform to some written or spoken policy. You'll see one business executive say that this data collection should not be regulated and that if the government does so, "it could bring down the economy." Please, please!!! Watch this video! Businesses are collecting info about you and then selling it for profit ... YOUR INFO!!! Anything for money! As you'll see, they're in your computer and in your phone, and companies you do business with are reaping other income than just by selling you products or services, they're often selling your information! If you believe, as I do, that business is firmly in control of the country, you'll now see that they know more about you than your mother does. The alarm bells are ringing folks. Will you wake up?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-data-brokers-selling-your-personal-information/

WORD HISTORY:
Data-This word is actually a plural form. It goes back to Indo European "doeh," which meant "to give." This gave its Italic offspring, and the derived Latin, "do," with the same basic meaning. This then gave Latin "dare," a verb meaning "to give, to offer." One of its participle forms was "datum," which then was used as a noun and meant "something or that which is given," the plural of which was "data." It was borrowed by English in the 1600s and the plural form tends to be used in English far more than the singular.

Pumpernickel Bread

There are a couple of general types of bread made and sold as "pumpernickel," but the original pumpernickel bread was developed in the Westphalia (German: Westfalen) region of Germany, at least by the 1400s, if not earlier. Some refer to it as "black bread," for the types with an especially dark color, but Germans have a couple of types of whole grain dark bread that are sometimes referred to by that name. Pumpernickel is made with very coarse rye meal (cracked whole rye), and it is then baked (see "Word History") for an incredibly long time (12 to like 20 hours) at a low temperature, which is what gives it its dark color, as there are no coloring additives that darken it in the original recipe type. The finished bread is crumbly and anywhere from dark brown to nearly black in color. Bakers eventually learned how to cut down on the time needed to produce pumpernickel, but still have it very much resemble and taste like the original recipe. They add some coloring agents, which allow the baking process to be considerably shortened. Whether this is also commonly used in Germany, I'm not certain, as many production traditions for various products remain strong in Germany. Pumpernickel is typically sold in packages with maybe 10 to 12 slices. You may find imported packages from Germany in your supermarket, but there are some of these "near genuine recipes" produced right in the U.S., including by one bakery in suburban Cleveland, called "Reinecker's Bakery." Their products are sold in some supermarkets in Greater Cleveland, besides at their own outlet.

Other pumpernickel in America is much softer and its dark color comes from additives like molasses or cocoa (I actually have a recipe which calls for both cocoa and coffee). You often see it in fairly large round loaves, or sometimes as pumpernickel (bread) rolls. It is not uncommon to see recipes that call for the round loaves to be hollowed out and used as "bowls" for various vegetable or chip dips. The softer pumpernickel, when sliced, is also easily used to make sandwiches, as opposed to the "original" or "near original," which are far too crumbly; at least in my opinion. I can't verify this, but I was told many years ago that the softer type of pumpernickel came to America with Jewish immigrants from Russia in the late 1800s or early 1900s.

When I grew up, pumpernickel was common place in my neighborhood, which had a strong German tradition dating to German immigrants arriving not long before the Civil War, clear up until just before World War One began. Ham, mettwurst or cheese were common accompaniments with pumpernickel, including a favorite of mine, Limburger cheese, although caraway studded rye bread was also frequently used for the strong smelling cheese that my older brother simply could not stand. 

 Photo of German-style pumpernickel bread, which tends toward being crumbly ...

 

 This has the soft type of pumpernickel with some pimento cheese and sliced tomato ...

WORD HISTORY: 

Bake-This word goes back to Indo European "bheg/bhog," which had the meaning "to bake or roast." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "bakanan," which meant "to bake." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "bacan," which then became "baken," before the modern version. The noun form, as in "clambake," was simply derived from the verb, but seemingly not until the 1800s. The other Germanic languages have: German "backen" ('a' pronounced short as in 'father'), Low German "backen," Dutch "bakken," West Frisian "bakke," Icelandic and Swedish "baka," Danish "bage," and Norwegian "bake" (the "a" is like "ah," and the ending "e" is pronounced like "eh/ah").

The Ship That Sailed

Note: While originally publish in March of 2014, I modestly updated this September 28, 2014.

When Barack Obama became President of the United States the ship of economic change had come into the dock. In my opinion, the fact that he was the first African American to be elected president was essentially irrelevant on the economic front, although it was significant in that it pointed to the "changing feelings" in the country regarding race, but the idea that Obama's election signaled a "post racial" era, was nonsense, as notice, I didn't say "completely changed feelings regarding race." No, the ship of economic change came calling, because when Barack Obama was elected, the nation's economy was in meltdown. Americans were fearful for their jobs and for their overall well being, and certainly for their futures. Surging oil and gasoline prices in prior years had sapped the purchasing power of many, a purchasing power already diminished for some by the transfer of jobs overseas, with the resulting cuts in wages for a number of Americans, and a continuing "transfer of wealth" to the very upper incomes. Republicans, much diminished in political power in both houses of Congress, as well as in opinion polls, generally decided to make a stand against the new president by opposing just about anything and everything he either proposed or supported, including things many Republicans had once supported, or had even proposed.* No question in my mind that some, but certainly not all, of this Republican opposition was based upon race and the new president's non typical name, but it was also, in my opinion, based upon $$$, as the nation's greed mongers feared the new president would curtail and corral their run wild activities, which they slyly love to call "free markets." As it turned out, no major banker went to prison over the absolutely scandalous mortgage mess, and strict proposals to curb such activity were successfully watered down before they were enacted by Congress and signed by the president, and no new tax on derivatives' and futures' transactions for Wall Street traders became law. Even with their relatively successful efforts to limit public control over their endeavors, the whiny rich bankers kept... well, whining.

President Obama had a chance to hit the "reset button," and to ride the issues of bank/financial reform and the tremendous economic inequality in the country to bring about significant change and to improve the lives of millions of Americans by helping to make the system fairer. As I've noted in previous articles, Barack Obama is not a politician; he's more of an intellectual, with some political skills, primarily the ability to give great speeches. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt understood the populist undercurrents of their times, and both men used those undercurrents to propose and to help enact change to a system that had been dominated by business interests and wealthy individuals, although neither man had to worry about his next meal or having a roof over his head. Obama's choice, however, while certainly related to income disparity, was to tackle the massive thing we call "the health care system" in this country. Various figures suggest "the health care system" makes up something like one sixth or even one fifth of the American economy. We Americans can be tough to please on just about any issue, but to please Americans on reforming such a massive part of the nation's economy was virtually impossible, and his decision helped the wealthy to escape from the position they had put themselves into when the economy imploded, and it led to a Republican resurgence in the midterm election, giving the, by then, even more conservative Republicans control of the House of Representatives, numerous governorships and state legislatures, all with the nation's congressional and state legislative districts about to be redrawn, but with Republicans then often in control of the process.** The President and his administration, seemingly unable to comprehend the potency of the healthcare issue, even after the blow torch was put to their behinds in the 2010 election, could not even get the roll out of THEIR new health care law right, as website snafus and postponement of certain provisions have proven to be an embarrassment, if not yet a fatal blow. On top of all of that, the president and those in his administration had to know the law, or at least parts of it, would be challenged in the court system, with eventually a likely hearing before the Supreme Court. This of course happened, and the law was upheld, but let's be honest, who would have thought this law would be upheld by the vote of conservative John Roberts! Of course, a win is a win, but "my guess" is, further decisions on various parts of the law will not see Roberts ever stray from the conservative line again, as he has already demonstrated in the "Hobby Lobby" case. The thing is, it looks to me that the President and his administration did not anticipate the challenges in the Supreme Court, a group which leans to the conservative side, a fact they already certainly knew.

So President Obama let the ship of economic change sail, with him waving goodbye to it from the dock. The President, Democrats and average and poor Americans better hope it doesn't return to the dock on his watch. Cuts to programs for the poor have already taken place and that's been with Obama as President. More power is now concentrated in a hand full of banks than when he became President, when many banks were called "too big to fail." The overwhelming percentage of economic gains have gone to the wealthiest Americans since the President took office in 2009, and median household income has so far declined every year of his presidency.*** If Republicans get control, look for even worse, as the wealthy will continue to move to cement their wealth within their families by the removal of estate taxes (and dare I say, more tax cuts for them from Republicans, who have a terrible case of worry over the plight of millionaires and billionaires) and the move toward further rule by the rich ("plutocracy") will accelerate. The problem is, with the ship having sailed, it looks like many of us will be able to say about the President is, "He wasn't as bad as having a Republican." Not exactly a good legacy.

* Republicans were divided over the bailouts of the auto industry, initiated by the administration of George W. Bush, and of the banks, a major program proposed and pushed by President Bush and his administration, both of which did get Republican support, but with many dissenters. Obama expanded the auto industry bailout, and continued with the bank bailouts, often drawing the ire of Republicans, who acted as if Obama had started both of these programs and seemingly disavowing any Republican association with either. Health care reform, including mandates for individuals to get insurance, had been pushed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and also supported by Newt Gingrich, among other Republicans. Once health care reform was proposed by Obama, the Republicans were almost unanimous in their opposition to the proposal, forcing the two former prominent supporters, Gingrich and Romney, into contorted reversals. So called "cap and trade," also was largely a Republican idea, dating back in some form a few decades. This was the general idea that limits for certain air pollutants would have "caps" placed on them by the government, and that permits would be issued to companies regarding these pollutant emissions. Companies that successfully limited certain or many pollutants could then sell their permits to other companies not as successful in these endeavors, giving them added time to comply (thus the idea of ''trade"). See this Politifact article for the general history of both Republican and Democratic involvement in "cap and trade" over time:   http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/may/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz/cap-and-trade-legislation-was-originally-republica/

** For more on the importance of the 2010 midterm election, see my article at this link:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-2010-was-such-important-election.html

*** For details about income, see the Huffington Post article at this link:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

WORD HISTORY:
Well (2)-English has a couple of words "well," this is the noun, "a hole in the earth where liquid or gas comes, or is brought, to the surface." (I already covered "well," the adverb, which is a different word.) Actually, the noun comes from a verb, which goes back to Indo European "wel," which had the notion "roll, move or turn violently." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wellanan/wallanan," with much the same meaning, but also the related "bubble up." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "weallan," with the meaning "to toss up violently, to seethe, to bubble up." This later became "well," with the sense "to surge/flow up" (example: "The leak caused water to well up around us"). The original Old English word produced the noun form "wielle," meaning "water hole, spring," which then became "welle," and then "well," where it has remained for many centuries. The other Germanic languages have forms with various meanings, some examples of which are: German has the verb "wallen," which means "boil up, surge forth, churn," also another verb, "wellen," which means "to become wavy (or uneven, as in carpet ... get it?) and the noun "Welle," which means "wave" ("water that churns up"); Low German has "Well," also meaning "wave," Dutch has "wel," meaning "source" (a well or spring is "the source" of life around it), and the verb "walsen," "to roll." By the way, "well" is also distantly related to "waltz," the dance performed "with a rolling motion."