First Responders Fund

In the first part of June 2019, entertainer and activist Jon Stewart accompanied some "first responders to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks" to Congress to appeal to representatives to act on renewal legislation to provide the money for the fund to take care of health care bills for the men and women who have suffered medical consequences for their actions during the aftermath of those attacks. A number of representatives did not even show up for the hearing, or perhaps some came in late. This is what our country has become, with "representatives," and I use that word with great skepticism, who are terribly detached from average people. If a hearing for this proposal featuring actual victims of deadly or debilitating illnesses could not get the attention of a number of  "representatives" (there's that word again), and Jon Stewart's presence and voice could not stir them to attend, what chance do you think you or I have to get action from "representatives" on other matters? The hearing proved to be an embarrassment for some "representatives," and after some pressure on the Majority Leader in the Senate, the legislation was passed, but it just shows how difficult it is to accomplish what should be an easy and non partisan task.

Regular readers know I'm a Democrat, BUT I do NOT give Democrats a free pass. While they acted on the legislation more quickly in the House of Representatives, over which the Democrats have control, they should have been FAR out in front and leading the charge on this issue. For not having done so, for Democrats... SLAP! SLAP! The Republicans are in charge of the Senate, and Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a remark on television that John Stewart was "bent out of shape" over the issue. For that, SLAP! SLAP! SLAP! To Jon Stewart... a PAT ON THE BACK for a job well done and for NOT taking the crap of Mitch McConnell, which forced McConnell to agree to bring the legislation to the floor of the Senate. 

Below are the role call votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have not listed the names of supporters of the legislation, rather only the names of those who voted "no," as well as the names of those who did not vote, so if you do not see a representative's or a senator's name, that means that person voted "Yes." As to those who did not vote, I have no idea why they did not vote, but I do know this, that barring serious illness or emergency, there is NO reason for not voting. The first job of a legislator is to legislate, and that means... to vote on legislation! So... to those who who did not vote and were not ill or in the midst of an emergency.... SLAP! SLAP!... and just so you remember.... SLAP! You deserve it, as you failed in your primary duty to your constituents and to the nation. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (July 12, 2019):

402 "Yes" votes
12 "No" votes
19 "Not voting"  

12 "NO" votes in the House of Representatives, eleven Republicans and one independent* (Justin Amash of Michigan, Jodey Arrington of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Ken Buck of Colorado, Michael Cloud of Texas, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Andy Harris of Maryland, Jody Hice of Georgia, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, John Rose of Tennessee

19 "not voting" (Republicans: Kevin Brady of Texas, Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, Garret Graves of Louisiana, Sam Graves of Missouri, Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Tom Rice of South Carolina, David Roe of Tennessee, Mike Rogers of Alabama, Ron Wright of Texas)
(Democrats: Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, Lloyd Doggett of Texas, Marcia Fudge of Ohio, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Ro Khanna of California, Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, Cedric Richmond of Louisiana)

SENATE (July 23, 2019):

97 "Yes" votes
2 "No" votes
1 "Not voting"

2 "No" votes, both Republicans (Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah)
1 "Not voting," a Republican (Johnny Isakson of Georgia)  

* Representative Justin Amash of Michigan was elected to this term of the House in November 2018 as a Republican. He announced in early July 2019 that he was declaring himself to be an independent. 

WORD HISTORY:
Clinic-This word is related to "incline," "recline" and "climate," all Latin-derived words borrowed by English. It goes back to Indo European "kley/klei," which had the notion, "to slope, to lean, to incline, to slant." This gave transliterated Greek "klíne," meaning, "bed," which produced the transliterated Greek adjective "klinikós," meaning, "of or about a bed." This then gave transliterated Greek "klinike téchne," meaning, "medical treatment for bedridden sick people." Latin borrowed the word as "clinicus," meaning, "doctor who tends to bedridden patients," later also the meaning transferred to "a bedridden patient." The word passed into French as "clinique," meaning, "doctor who tends to bedridden patients." English borrowed the word from French in the first half of the 1600s, initially with the meaning, "bedridden patient." German also borrowed the word from French (early 1800s?), initially as "Clinik," then "Klinik," by which time it had taken on the meaning in French, "facility for training medical personal by firsthand experience at bedsides," which also was taken by German. The English word then took on the meaning of a "hospital, medical treatment facility," by influence of the German meaning in the 1880s.     

2018, Perhaps The Most Important Election EVER

Signs of a developing trend leading to the crucial midterm election on November 6 have been in abundance in early special elections. Americans almost always seem to reprimand the party holding the White House in elections held at the halfway mark of a president's term. (DAMN! It just dawned on me, that must be why they call them the "midterm elections." See, just give me a few decades and I can figure it out.) It doesn't always seem to mean that Americans dislike the president in office at the time, but all presidents step on some toes, and those with smarting toes are highly motivated to limp to the polls to vote, often leading their own party to turn out in large enough numbers to give anything from a nudge to an outright smack upside the head to the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, better known as the White House. There have been numerous special elections since Donald Trump took office in January 2017, and while these elections have produced a number of Democratic wins, including some stunning wins, even the Democratic losses have shown a major narrowing of the margins of Republican victories, compared to recent historical Republican margins in those regions. 

Thoughtful change often wins in the end, but it can take time and the question is, can American institutions and American ideals hold on long enough to win against a man who longs to destroy American democracy so that he can become the undisputed Führer of the United States? Republicans in Congress have knowingly rolled over for this strident, divisive and highly insecure president. Have we forgotten the longstanding question about Hitler and Germans? How could an educated and cultured people follow such a self centered and maniacal man like Hitler, a man with obvious emotional problems? We need not ask that question any longer, for the answer is right before our eyes in the United States of America, where a bigoted, resentful and spiteful old bastard with a bad hairdo has risen to lead this country (hey, Hitler had a bad hairdo too). The GOP has long cultivated the uneasiness of some white Americans about the attempts of black Americans, as well as other American minorities, like Latinos, women (who are actually a majority) and gays, to gain equality and fairness in our society. The thing is, in my lifetime, I have heard many divisive statements by American politicians, including, but not limited to, George Wallace* in the 1960s and 1970s, and David Duke** in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, but I've never heard a president of the United States use so much divisive rhetoric to further his own cause and to satisfy his own ego, as one Donald Trump, the unity of the country be damned!      

This upcoming election is likely to be a fight to the death. Are Democrats, independents and anti Trump Republicans ready? Trump and the complicit and enabling Republicans will do anything and everything to minimize their losses and hold onto their control of Congress. The Koch brothers, the Mercers and all of the other "take me back to a previous century" people will spend unprecedented amounts to further Republican control of government. They will say it is to further the Republican Party, but that party is now the party of Donald Trump, which they will NOT tell you. Will the election prove to be the beginning of Trump's political demise, or will he and Republicans emerge stronger than ever, and likely be able to suppress the rights of Americans to protest and to stop the media from reporting critical news articles about them? Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China are Trump heroes, and they are dictators. We don't need to dig up Einstein to connect the dots for us to understand where Trump stands on democracy. This is all in front us, not hidden somewhere in the shadows of the news. Don't be in denial. Don't stick your head in the sand. We can't take our eyes off of them for one second. The young people of this country have stirred and have been springing into action. They can help to lead us through the potentially destructive nightmare of Trumpian fascism.

For the last couple of centuries, people around the world have looked to the United States as a beacon of hope. Some people have been inspired by the U.S. to pursue freedoms within their own respective countries, while others have left their homelands bound for American shores. We're seeing the light of that beacon flickering like a kerosene lamp running low on fuel. The question is, will WE choose to refill the lamp and keep this beacon of hope shining, or will we let the lamp go dry and extinguish its light, letting the path of hope go dark? We now have a man in office who praises dictators and judges people not as individuals, but by their ethnic, racial or religious backgrounds. That's what Führers do.


* George Wallace was the governor of Alabama in the 1960s, a time when desegregation of schools and public facilities was ongoing. For more on the issue of desegregation and racial politics, here are  two links: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-former-confederacy-modern-american_8.html 

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-former-confederacy-modern-american_15.html 

** David Duke is a long time member, and a former leader, of the "Ku Klux Klan," often known by its initials, "KKK," a racist and overall hate filled group dating to the post Civil War era in the American South. Duke was born in Oklahoma, but he has spent much of his life in Louisiana. As most Southerners of earlier times, Duke was a Democrat, and he sought office as such, but as Louisiana and the South, in general, moved more to the Republican Party, Duke changed to that party in the late 1980s. Duke became known for his anti Black American and anti Jewish views. 

WORD HISTORY:
Beacon-This word for "a light positioned on some high place to serve as a guide or warning, often for ships, but not exclusively so," goes back to Indo European "bhah," which had the notion, "to shine, to be bright, to appear as bright." This provided the later basis for West Germanic "bauknan" (English is West Germanic), meaning, "signal light." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "beacen/becn," meaning, "sign, signal." This then became "beken," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German "Bake" (pronounced as if, "bahkeh") meaning, "traffic sign, railway signal," originally used in reference to "a fire set on a geographically high point or in a tower to provide sea navigation);" Low German Saxon "Baak" (sign or signal for ships), West Frisian "beaken" ("buoy"), Dutch "baken" ("beacon"). "Apparently," long ago, Old Norse, from the North Germanic branch of the Germanic languages, borrowed the word from Frisian as, "bákn," which meant, "signal, signal fire."^ This was passed down to the modern North Germanic languages as: Icelandic "bákn," which now means, "large stone column;" that is, "a column showing direction."

^ Centuries ago, the Frisian word was "baken/beken," and meant "signal or signal fire." Later, Frisian split into dialects, giving West Frisian the altered spelling and the narrowed meaning to the modern "buoy." Researching North Frisian is very hard, but it "seems" to have "beken," but I can't confirm that from multiple sources. North Frisian is spoken in the German region of North Frisia, which also includes a number of North Sea islands, called the North Frisian Islands (someone stayed awake late to come up with that name). Remember too, while North Frisian is the spoken regional language, standard German is taught to everyone in school.   

The Deal With the Ruthless, Greedy Internet Devils (Plural)

Likely most in the public didn't exactly understand the deal they were being asked to accept for the "right" to have free access to Facebook, Google and others. The almost voluminous agreements flashed onto our screens are all lengthy and complicated for a reason... SO YOU WON'T ACTUALLY READ THEM! Yes, we SHOULD read them, but few really do (I plead guilty), and the issuing companies know that. The info the technology companies have compiled on us, by various reports, is STAGGERING! We sold our souls and our very personas and the info they have on us will not stay contained; after all, this is about MONEY; therefore, NOTHING is off the table, because they will do ANYTHING for MONEY. Then there are the various Internet service providers to whom we PAY money for their service, and they track EVERY click we make on the Web. They know more about us than we can remember about ourselves! If you really believe these moneygrubbing exploiters won't use any of your medical or banking info, or info on your children or grandchildren, that they have pilfered or pillaged, you're being terribly naive. They want MONEY! Gazillions! Not a quarter of a gazillion, not a half a gazillion, not one gazillion, GAZILLIONS!

Last year, congressional Republicans and Trump repealed Obama rules on your browsing history that were set to go into effect to give individuals the right to approve the collection and sale of their private browsing history. The passage of the repeal by Congress and the signing of the measure by Donald Trump allows the internet service providers (separate from entities like Google and Facebook) to sell your collected browsing history without your consent. Let's start the bidding ... who will give us a bundle for a BUNDLE of info on these people? This is how the vote went in Congress:

Senate vote: 50 FOR, all Republicans, 48 AGAINST, all Democrats, 2 not voting, Republicans Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

House vote: 215 FOR, all Republicans, 205 AGAINST (all voting Democrats and 15 Republicans*), 9 members not voting**, 5 vacancies***

* 15 Republicans against the measure: Brooks (MO), McClintock (CA), Coffman (CO), Yoder (KS), Graves (LA), Amash (MI), Zeldin (NY), Faso (NY), Stefanik (NY), Jones (NC), Davidson (OH), Sanford (SC), Duncan (TN), Herrara Beutler (WA), Reichert (WA)

** 9 members not voting: Sean Duffy (R-WI), James French Hill (R-AR), Tom Marino (R-PA), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Michael Simpson (R-ID), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Paul Tonko (D-NY)

*** One vacancy in each of these states: Montana, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, California

WORD HISTORY:
Plunder-In terms of this word's more distant history, this is a mystery word. It was borrowed by English from a sub-dialect of Bavarian German called "Hutterisch," spoken by "some" Protestant groups that grew out of the Reformation. The word "seems" to date to a noun form in the 1300s, at least, in German. In those times, the noun meant, "household goods," which also developed the extended meaning, "clothing." The noun spawned the verb "plundern," which later had an umlaut added to make, "plündern," meaning, "to carry off goods from a house." In those times, Low German and Dutch both had the similar verb "plunderen," while West Frisian had "plonderje," all with the same general meaning as the German verb, as well as, "to take over someone's possessions," with a growing emphasis on "taking possessions by force." German also developed "Plünderer," meaning, "one who plunders, one who takes possessions from others by force, a looter." Both the noun and the verb forms were borrowed by English during the first half of the 1600s. More or less as already noted, German has the verb "plündern," meaning, "to plunder, to loot," and the noun, "Plunder," which has now come to mean "junk, rubbish:" Dutch has the verb "plunderen," meaning, "to plunder, to ransack, to loot;" as well as the noun, "plundering," meaning, "the act of plundering, marauding."

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Twenty-One

A big part of Bill Clinton's campaign for the presidency had been centered around, "It's the economy stupid," an expression originally meant to keep Clinton campaign workers focused, but which, in fact, became the campaign's slogan. Once in office, Clinton and his administration pushed for, and got, a plan to raise taxes on the top 1.2% of earners, while cutting taxes for many people further down the income scale, as well as for many businesses. The tax on gasoline also was raised by 4 cents + on a gallon of gasoline. Republicans went ballistic, claiming the Clinton plan would prove to be devastating (more on this in an future part of this series). Clinton and Democrats would increasingly claim credit for the improving economy, with this legislation being the cornerstone of the administration's economic policy.

The plan eked through both houses of Congress in August 1993, as ALL Republicans in both houses voted AGAINST the measure. This is how the senate delegations from former Confederate states, of two senators from each state, voted: SENATE: Alabama: 1 Democrat for, 1 Democrat against; Arkansas: 2 Democrats for; Florida: 1 Democrat for, 1 Republican against; Georgia: 1 Democrat against, 1 Republican against; Louisiana: 1 Democrat for, 1 Democrat against; Mississippi: 2 Republicans against; North Carolina: 2 Republicans against; South Carolina: 1 Democrat for, 1 Republican against; Tennessee: 2 Democrats for; Texas: 2 Democrats against; Virginia: 1 Democrat for, 1 Republican against. The total Senate vote was 50 votes for and 50 votes against, and Vice President Al Gore (from Tennessee) cast the tie breaking vote, by naturally voting "for" the measure. In the House of Representatives, the votes by delegation from former Confederate states: Alabama: 3 Democrats for, 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat against; Arkansas: 1 Democrat for, 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat against; 9 Democrats for, 1 Democrat and 13 Republicans against; Georgia: 5 Democrats for, 4 Republicans and 2 Democrats against; Louisiana: 2 Democrats for, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats against; Mississippi: 2 Democrats for, 3 Democrats against; North Carolina: 8 Democrats for, 4 Republicans against; South Carolina: 3 Democrats for, 3 Republicans against; Tennessee: 4 Democrats for, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats against; Texas: 15 Democrats for, 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats against; Virginia: 6 Democrats for, 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat against.


WORD HISTORY:
Booth-Some of the history of this word is a bit shaky, but this is what I've come up with, although parts of it could be altered, if I find more information. This word, related to "bower" and to the "-bor" (British: "-bour") part of "neighbor," goes back Indo European "bu/bhu," which meant, "to dwell, to live upon or in," an extended meaning from the base meaning, "to exist, to be." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "buraz," with the meaning "place where one dwells," and a derived form, "buwan," meaning, "to construct or settle for the purpose of living or shelter." English once had the verb "buan," meaning "to live, to dwell, to live in or on, to occupy." A derived form, "budo," meaning, "a place constructed for shelter," apparently developed in Old Germanic itself, or "perhaps" in its North Germanic offspring.^ Whatever the case, Old Norse had "buð" (ð=th in more modern times), seemingly meaning, "a small house or tent, an encampment." The notion of "tent, encampment" gave the meaning the sense of "temporary," or, "not sturdily built." This then carried over to an extended meaning, "a structure or enclosure of boards or material for temporary use for selling goods, and thus easily moved around." English borrowed the word from Old Norse in the mid 1100s. 

^ There are similar forms outside of Germanic, but whether these were borrowed from Germanic (I find some of it doubtful), or whether they simply followed a similar course of development on their own from the original Indo European is unclear (something a bit hard for me to completely buy into). Even sorting through the Germanic forms are difficult, as there are many words that are derived from the Germanic form, and the basic meaning had many angles to it. For example, English has "build" and German has "bauen" (meaning, "to build, to construct," but also the extended, "to cultivate the soil"). English has "bower" ("dwelling," but also once a word for "farmer," and then, "area in a garden sheltered by trees or leafy plants." German has "Bauer" (farmer, peasant," but also, "bird cage"), and there are others. Determining the direct relatives to "booth" is also challenging, but German has, "Bude" (booth, kiosk), Low German has "Bood" (booth, small shop), Swedish has "bod" (shed), Icelandic has "búð" (a shop, a booth).

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Two

The 1936 election gave the Democratic Party a landslide victory, with Franklin Roosevelt carrying all former states of the Confederacy (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia). Democrats continued to hold all 22 Senate seats and all but two congressional seats in the former Confederate states.* This situation did not change until the spring of 1950, when a special election was held to replace a congressman who became a judge in Texas. The district was in the panhandle area of Texas and a Republican won the special election, but served only a few months before being defeated by a Democrat in the regular election in November of 1950. In the 1952 election, Republicans picked up three seats in the House in former states of the Confederacy: 1 in North Carolina and 2 in Virginia. ** By the next election, in 1954, the Republicans picked up a House seat in Florida, a seat in Texas and two seats in Virginia; however, all senators in the former Confederacy remained Democrats. In the 1956 election, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower won a major reelection victory, but Republicans could still not win any Senate seats in the former Confederacy, nor could they add any further House seats. So as Eisenhower began his second term, his political party's delegation from the former Confederate states had 2 House seats in Tennessee, 1 seat in Texas, 1 seat in Florida, 1 in North Carolina and 2 in Virginia.

Lyndon Johnson, a Democratic senator from Texas, was chosen by John F. Kennedy as the Democratic Party nominee for vice president in 1960, and in the election, the Kennedy-Johnson ticket won a close race. A Democrat was appointed to fill Johnson's seat in the Senate, but he then lost the seat to Republican John Tower in a special election a few months later. John Tower became a Senate fixture. The Republicans had cracked the solid Democratic hold on Senate seats in the former Confederacy.***

* As in Part One, Republicans continued to hold the 2 seats in eastern Tennessee; however, unlike in 1930, the one Republican congressman from Texas died in office and was replaced by a Democrat. This is the link to "Part One," if needed:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-former-confederacy-modern-american.html

** Republicans held a majority in both houses of Congress, at that time.

*** Just to be clear, during 1959 both Alaska and Hawaii became states, thus adding a total of 4 senators and increasing the Senate to an even 100 senators, where it has remained ever since. In the House of Representatives, each of the two new states received one House seat, until the Census of 1960 could be completed and new apportionment for House seats calculated; thus, temporarily, the number of seats in the House of Representatives rose to 437, from 435.

WORD HISTORY:
Chore-This word goes back to Indo European "ger/gers," which had the notion "to turn, to bend around." It is distantly related to Greek "gyros," "meat that cooks by turning." ^ The Indo European form gave its Old Germanic offspring "karisjanan," which also meant "to turn, to turn around." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the verb "cierran" (to turn, to turn back, change/convert; that is, turn something from one thing to another), which produced the noun "cierr" (a turn, a change, period of time changed from normal use to refer to business matter, work, occasion). "Cierr" then became "cherre," with the primary meaning "odd job;" that is, a change from routine work or time, and this then became "char," now rarely encountered except in the compound "charwoman," a term for a "cleaning lady," still in use at times in England. In the United States, the variant pronunciation "chore" for "char" prevailed, and the meaning "odd job" still remained somewhat, but usually with the meaning "routine personal jobs for one's own household," often, but not exclusively, used in reference to "chores" for kids, like "taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, raking leaves, making small trips to the store." Some other forms in the Germanic languages: German has "kehren" (verb: return, turn around)  and "Kehre" (noun: sharp turn, sudden major change), Dutch "keer" (noun: occasion; that is,  change in normal time) and "keren" (verb: return).

^ Greek is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree. English and many European languages have a number of words that trace back to Greek, although some came by way of Latin, which borrowed a number of Greek words, some of which were later passed on to English and others.

It's About Coalitions, Not Purity, Part Forty-Five

"The Chickens Come Home To Roost-George W. Bush's Second Term," Part 2

George W. Bush chose 3 nominees for the United State Supreme Court, although one of those, Harriet Miers, withdrew. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito were confirmed, with opposition, by the U.S. Senate.*

In the late summer of 2005, a major hurricane, named Katrina, struck the U.S. Gulf coast. President Bush and his administration were slow to respond to what became a major crisis, as state and local governments struggled to accommodate those displaced by the violent storm, as well as to clean up the immense destruction caused by Katrina. Photos and videos of people begging for help from rooftops in flooded areas struck a raw nerve with many Americans, as they turned on the president and the conservative philosophy of people needing to do more to help themselves. The reports about the clean up and the overall catastrophe went on for months.

George W. Bush also tried to reform the immigration system, including what was termed, "a path to citizenship," but hard line conservatives opposed the measure, and it did not pass, in two separate attempts.

The war in Iraq continued, with the president sending more troops, a part of a "surge." When the surge helped to cut some of the violence in Iraq, President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al Maliki, made an agreement with the goal of the withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. During President Bush's entire second term, the debate over the use of torture to obtain information from prisoners came under intense fire at home and abroad. Further, responsibility for the faulty information used to get the U.S. into Iraq in the first place was front and foremost in the minds of many. The drumbeat had ceased to be the one leading to war, but rather one wanting answers and accountability for the previous drumbeat TO war.

Oil and gasoline prices surged ahead to new records, with the president and Republicans saying it was "just the free market at work." More and more another statistic began to be heard in economic reports... FORECLOSURES, as the numbers for such continued to escalate. The banking system began to show signs of strain (I'll cover the financial crisis in the next segment) and the president and congressional Democrats (Democrats controlled Congress after the 2006 election) worked together to get a tax rebate totaling about 150 billion dollars. As speculation in the oil and gas markets drove prices ever higher, I recall one analyst saying how a significant part of the tax rebate would go into the pockets of big time speculators. Ahh, c'mon, now. You don't think those greedy, no good bastards would do that, do you? After all, the Bush administration said it was "free markets." I guess pickpockets could claim the same thing... free markets.

Another sign of the free markets was showing..... tremendous stress on the Republican coalition.

Next.... The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown

* Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired and then Chief Justice William Rehnquist died; thus the two Supreme Court vacancies. 

WORD HISTORY:
Term-This word, distantly related to "through," goes back to the Indo European root "terh," which had the idea of, "pass through, pass beyond," which then produced the extended "termen," which had the notion, "limit, boundary." This gave Latin "terminus," which meant, "boundary or limit:  geographically, time wise, contract wise;" thus also, "a word or expression." This gave Latin-based Old French "terme," and this was borrowed into English, circa 1200, initially with the ending "e."

Obama Creates Bipartisanship

Unless you have been visiting another planet lately, you know the country is in the midst of a major discussion about taking action against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. President Barack Obama recently  came out in favor of the action, after he was convinced that Assad had used chemical weapons on his opponents in Syria, where there has been an ongoing civil war for about two years now. The whole situation has turned American politics on its head, as the President's decision has created bipartisanship the likes of which we have not seen since near the end of the Bush administration, as the economic meltdown brought people from both parties together. The thing is, this time, it has created a divide in both political parties, as some Democrats have joined some Republicans (we'll know how many of each officially very soon) to support the action, and some Democrats have joined some Republicans to oppose the action. Polls show Americans against the action by a substantial margin, and members of both houses of Congress say calls and emails to their offices are also running heavily against involvement in the conflict.

This President has a terrible habit of handing his opponents, both domestic and international, issues to use  against him, and he has gotten himself into a terrible situation, and it's HIS fault, no one else's, regardless of the talk where he indicated the world had drawn a red line in any country's use of chemical weapons. Did he consult with "the rest of the world" to get them to commit to the action they agreed to take in a hypothetical situation?  The answer appears to be "no," or if he did consult with them, he apparently didn't like their answers and he made pronouncements about Assad having crossed a red line and that action would be taken by the United States. It is important to note, the British Parliament just recently voted against Britain's involvement in this action, even though British Prime Minister David Cameron supported the President's position. The President then decided to get the approval of Congress, which, unless I miss my guess, he will not get, and he will face the fallout from it, which has the potential to be substantial, both at home and abroad. On the other hand, to go forward with military action, with or without the approval of Congress, will also bring fallout, both domestically and internationally, as he and Congress will be going against both American and world public opinion in a major way; it's called "lose, lose." He can't back away, because his ego won't let him, nor will the political situation he has created with his position, but he's damaged himself regardless of what now happens. Poor judgment on his part from the very start.

The evidence against Assad is all circumstantial, at least at this point, and much is based upon intelligence, a device severely tainted by the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to argue for an invasion of Iraq, a conflict which brought thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions in expenditures to America, whose citizens were never asked to pay (in money) for the war. What was not paid for in money, was paid for in lives and suffering of our wounded, and in the suffering to the families who suffered losses of life and limb.

 To further add to this current terrible situation, Secretary of State John Kerry has said there is no major Al Qaeda presence among Assad's opponents, a comment that seems highly suspect to me. This also brought Russian leader Vladimir Putin to publicly call Kerry "a liar." Now to be fair, Putin, while friendly with former President George W. Bush, seemingly can't stand President Obama, but Obama did stick his finger in Putin's eye (symbolically) early on after taking office.* Putin's ego stretches somewhere from Moscow to the furthest part of Siberia, so he didn't laugh off Obama's comments about him. Further, Russia has been a close ally of Syria for some time, giving Putin at least the chance to make mischief with Obama's plans for Syria, while he watches the President twitch in discomfort and face a likely meltdown of his presidency.

Then of course there's Republican Senator John McCain, who is holding the President's feet to the fire for strong action in Syria, and who has been itching to get the U.S. militarily involved in Syria for a couple of years, but then again, McCain pretty much wants America militarily involved on much of the planet, including I believe at the North Pole; after all, Santa does wear a red suit, and may be a communist, although he's definitely a socialist. Hey, he comes down chimneys and leaves free toys for kids. Now what kind of an example is that? These kids will grow up thinking you can get stuff for free, or at least for only a glass of milk, a cookie, and a few lumps of sugar for some reindeer. That's enough to get a military commitment to put "boots on the ground," or "on the snow," against Santa from John McCain.

The President and supporters have been making moral arguments about Assad and chemical weapons; and there's something to be said for that (if the intelligence is correct), BUT moral battles also have to be realistic, and this battle is not realistic.  

* In the months after his election in 2008, Obama commented (in so many words) that Putin was too stuck in the past, alluding to Putin's service as a fairly high ranking officer in the "KGB," the Soviet secret police during Communist rule. 

WORD HISTORY:
Utter-English has two words "utter;" one used as an adjective to mean "total" (as in, "utter chaos broke out"), and the other used as a verb to mean "to speak, to use the voice in some manner" ^ (as in, "The delirious woman uttered a few things"), but both words come from the same ultimate source. They go back to Indo European "ud," which meant "up, out." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ut," which then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "ut," which then later became modern "out." Old Germanic "ut" developed "utizon" as the comparative form, to mean "outer, furthest outside." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "utera," with that same meaning, and the notion of "furthest outside" brought about the figurative meaning   "total." Of course, the same form also gave modern English "outer." Other forms in Germanic (they all mean 'outer'): German has "äusser," Low German "uter," Dutch "uiter," Danish "ydre," Icelandic "ytri," Norwegian "ytre," and Swedish "yttre." Apparently Frisian no longer uses a form. Utter, the verb meaning "to use the voice," also goes back to Indo European "ud" (up, out), and this then gave Old Germanic "ut." This then gave Old English "útian," which meant "to expel, put out from land," a form which seems to mirror the then Low German "utern" and "uteren" in High German, both of which seem to have meant "express something, speak out, demonstrate/reveal something." The Old English form produced a later "outen," which meant "to reveal, disclose," and the Low German form apparently was borrowed in the 1300s or early 1400s and fused with the English form for "utter." Modern German has "äussern" (to express) and Low German has "ütern" (to express).

^ The verb also is used in law, most commonly to describe the passing of forged checks.  

GOP More Proficient At Gerrymandering

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

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

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

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

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

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-Four

"Tax Cuts and 9/11" (Part One)

The core of George W. Bush's initial domestic agenda was a huge tax cut totaling more than one and a quarter trillion dollars over tens years. The President argued that with "projected" surpluses of about five and a half trillion dollars over the same ten year period,* this would give taxpayers a sort of rebate on their over payment of taxes and help boost the economy, which was in a slowdown. The tax cuts were to be generally phased in over a period of years, then expire after ten years (12/31/2010).** The new law both lowered the estate tax rate and excluded a larger amount from that tax, with a total elimination of the tax scheduled after ten years. This was a major boon to the wealthiest Americans. Income tax rates were generally reduced 3% for the overwhelming percentage of taxpayers, but rates were reduced by more than four and a half percent for the wealthy. Some conservatives argued the cuts would eliminate national debt, while opponents argued the skewing of cuts toward the wealthy would worsen the already growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of Americans, and that the surpluses would be greatly diminished, if not eliminated. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 230 to 197 (with 5 not voting), with support from only 13 Democrats, but all 216 Republicans (one independent also voted "yes"); in the Senate the vote was 62 to 38, with 12 Democrats joining 50 Republicans for passage, with 38 Democrats opposing.

Another major initiative was in education, and the "No Child Left Behind Act" had bipartisan support. The complex law basically required states to administer standardized tests to all students, with emphasis on basic education skills. Further, states had to set criteria for hiring and retaining qualified teachers. Schools where students performed poorly in certain subjects were to be targeted for improvement, which could mean the replacement of teachers and administrators. The law is very complex and for those interested, check online for more information or, better yet, check your local library. The "basic measure" passed the House by a vote of 384 to 45, with 34 Republicans, 10 Democrats and 1 independent opposing (4 not voting). In the Senate, the bill passed 91 to 8 (1 not voting), with 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats opposing.***  

* It is important to note the figures were based upon ten years. Politicians and political operatives in both parties love to toss figures around, but a perspective should be kept on the time period involved, although the cumulative effect is important. Just for the sake of example: "We're going to cut a half a trillion dollars from program XYZ." Politicians love to use that word "trillion" and they'll use it whenever they can, as it is more attention grabbing than saying "500 billion." Notice though too, no time frame is included. A 500 billion dollar cut in any of the nation's biggest programs in one or two years would be staggering, but if it is over ten or twenty years, the cut is likely to be much more manageable.

** Once these phased in tax cuts became law, many were then expedited in a new tax law in 2003.

*** These votes were on what really constituted the basic bill, but differences between the House and Senate versions required those differences to be worked out in a joint committee, and then the finalized version had to be passed again and then signed into law by the President. These vote totals varied slightly from the earlier votes on the basic measure given in the main text above; 381 to 41 in the House and 87 to 10 in the Senate.   

WORD HISTORY:
Quell-This verb traces back to Indo European "kwel," which had the notion of "to inflict pain, to torture, torment." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kwaljanan," with the same basic meanings. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "cwellan," which meant "to kill, to murder." Later the "cw" came to be spelled "qu," and the main meaning softened to "suppress," as the "kill" meaning is now obsolete. One German source mentions that the English "suppress" meaning was initially literary and poetic in usage, but then became the main meaning. Other Germanic languages have: German "quälen," which still means "to torture;" Low German Saxon "quelen," which means "to inflict pain, torture;" Dutch "kwellen," which means "to torment," but also "to beat to pieces." The Old Norse form "kvelja," meant "to torture, torment," and "presumably" these are the descendants of that form, but with a shift in meaning, although still with the idea of "inflicting pain (torture)," but also of "choking, smothering;" that is, "suppressing," in a figurative sense: Danish "kvaele," which means "to strangle, to choke," Norwegian "kvele," meaning "to choke, to suffocate," Swedish "kvävas," also meaning "to choke, to suffocate," Icelandic "kaefa," meaning "to smother." Interestingly, the North Germanic languages still use forms of the word to mean "torture, torment, pain, agony," but they are all noun forms, as they use other, unrelated, words in modern times to convey those meanings in verb forms. Notice both Swedish and Icelandic have lost the "L" sound, Swedish has added another "v" sound, and Icelandic has transposed the vowel and "v/f" sounds.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-Three

"Clinton Leaves In More Controversy, Bush Takes Office"

Bill Clinton's controversial time in office closed with ... ah ... controversy. On his last day, Clinton, as most presidents do, made some pardons and sentence commutations, many of them involving a certain amount of controversy, but his pardon of Marc Rich drew a resoundingly negative response, even among many Democrats. Rich, who had been born in Belgium, but whose family fled to the United States to escape Hitler, was an American citizen who later became involved in the oil markets, including with Iran, even during the American hostage crisis and in spite of sanctions against Iran put in place by President Carter.* Rich's extensive overseas business dealings had him out of the United States for considerable periods of time. By the 1980s, Rich had been indicted by the U.S. government on criminal charges of tax evasion and illegal dealings with Iran. Rich was in Europe and remained there, thus becoming a wanted man. Later, the U.S. government changed its policy on tax evasion, choosing to pursue such matters in civil suits, rather than as criminal cases. Clinton said the criminal charge should be dropped in favor of the updated civil suit tax evasion procedure,** favoring a position argued by Rich's attorney, one "Scooter" Libby, a Republican, later heavily involved with Dick Cheney. One of the problems was, Rich's wife had made donations to Democrats, making the matter smell like a political deal, but the real problem was Rich's dealings with Iran during the hostage crisis.

Also as Clinton left office, the economy sagged, as high gasoline prices and the bursting of the so called "dot.com bubble" took a toll. The mid to late 1990s had seen a growth in the Internet and in companies doing business on the Web. The lure of the new technology brought stock buyers to these companies in large numbers, but the failure of some businesses to reap fast rewards eventually brought the stock prices tumbling and an uncertainty to the economy. Enter George W. Bush....

As Bush took office, the party division in Congress further highlighted the national split, just as the presidential vote had. Republicans retained control of the House by a narrow margin and the Senate was 50-50, but with Republicans in control by virtue of Vice President Cheney, as the vice president has a Senate vote in case of a tie. The new president proposed to use part of the then record budget surplus for tax cuts to help boost the economy.*** Many Democrats argued the proposed tax cuts would disproportionately favor the wealthy, and the battle was on.

Next... "Tax Cuts and 9/11"

* Rich's idea was, maintain good business relations with as many international leaders of oil nations as possible, including, or "perhaps especially," those out of favor in western countries. With oil scarcities, use the connections to buy oil at relatively cheap prices and then sell it to those willing to pay premium price, thus making millions.

** The pardon did not exempt Rich from civil suits and it levied a multi million dollar fine on him.

*** The budget surpluses looked larger than they actually were, because of Social Security being included in the overall federal budget numbers. Understand, that also means the budget deficits of previous years were really worse than most Americans realized, because of the inclusion of Social Security. What do I mean? Well, during that general era, Social Security was taking in more money than it paid out annually, thus, when added to the overall federal budget, it made surpluses look larger in the late 1990s, just as it had made federal deficits look smaller prior to that time.
   
WORD HISTORY:
Spear-This word traces back to Indo European "sper/spar," which had the notion of "pole." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "speri," which meant "spear." This gave Old English "spere," which meant "spear, lance," and this then became "spear." The verb form developed from the noun. Other Germanic languages have: standard German and Low German Saxon "Speer," Dutch "speer," West Frisian "spear." The North Germanic languages use a different word for this meaning.   

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Seven

"The Government Shuts Down and Clinton Runs Again"

Republicans were able to bring back elements of the Reagan coalition to overwhelm Democrats in the 1994 election, as many Americans were upset with congressional scandals, trade agreements, and the National Rifle Association implied that Democrats (with some exceptions) would take guns away from law-abiding citizens, thus mobilizing some of the anti-government sentiment so cultivated by conservatives during Reagan's time. Republican strategists, led by Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia, put out a a list of issues called "The Contract With America," which featured proposals that polled well with Americans, like making congressional representatives live by the same laws passed by Congress. The GOP also had specific measures they said they would introduce if given the majority, like welfare reform. The election was a Republican congressional landslide, as the GOP was voted into the majority in both houses of Congress.

The new GOP majorities took office in early 1995, but by late 1995, the Republicans and President Clinton were on a showdown course over the 1996 federal budget. Republicans were able to get measures through both houses, but the President vetoed the bill, as it essentially contained too many cuts he did not favor. Both sides agreed in principle to balancing the budget, but it was the means of doing that that brought confrontation, as Republicans wanted changes in Medicare and Social Security.* After negotiations between the two sides failed to produce a deal, a part of the government shut down, which ended a few days later due to a temporary agreement to extend government funding as negotiations continued. When these negotiations too failed, the government shutdown, part two, went into effect. This shutdown lasted about three weeks, with parts of the economy and the public feeling the affects. Then Speaker Gingrich announced that part of the reason he had let the government shut down was because President Clinton had made him sit in the back of the plane during a trip to Israel. Democrats pounced and the story took on a life of its own, as Gingrich was indicated to be a cry baby who threw a tantrum, which costs millions of Americans money and inconvenienced millions more. Eventually the Republicans and Clinton came to an agreement similar to one proposed weeks before, prior to the painful shutdown.

The Republican Senate leader was Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, who was a top tier candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 1996. Arch conservative commentator Pat Buchanan entered the fray as he had in 1992. After a stunning victory by Buchanan in New Hampshire, Republican strategists pushed for endorsements and money for the campaign of Dole, who was able to defeat Buchanan in several key primaries, thus ensuring his nomination. Dole chose Jack Kemp to be his running mate. While not especially close with Gingrich, once nominated, Democrats made sure people believed Dole and Gingrich were best friends. If I remember correctly, Dole later joked that Democratic ads made he and Gingrich sound like they were one and the same person, as the ads continually mentioned "Dole/Gingrich" in one breath. Dole's age was something of an issue (he was in his early 70s), especially when contrasted with the middle age Clinton (who was 50). Ross Perot also entered as a third party candidate, but there was no surge for Perot this time, at least not on the order of 1992.

The economy had picked up, and Republicans were left saying they could do even better, which often tends to be a losing argument, and it was in 1996 too. By election day Clinton won easily with just over 49% of the vote, but with 379 electoral votes; while Dole garnered less than 41% of the vote and 159 electoral votes. Perot received more than 8% of the vote, and no electoral votes. Again Clinton carried several southern states, depriving Republicans of their stranglehold on the region. So the Democrats had a two term president, but he failed to receive at least 50% of the vote either time. Still, was this the beginning of a more firm Democratic coalition? After all, Clinton may not have gotten 50% in either election, but Republicans didn't even get 40% the first time, and just over that amount in 1996. Perot's candidacy, especially in 1992, certainly had an impact, probably to the negative side for Republicans.

* I've mentioned in other articles here over the years that my father was a staunch Republican who had had something of a fixation with Social Security (and Medicare somewhat), as many Republicans had and still do have. After my father retired though, he saw things differently, and he was angry that Republicans would go after Social Security, saying that privatization plans by the GOP catered to greedy business people who "couldn't wait to get their hands on that (Social Security) money."  

WORD HISTORY:
Sail-It appears that "sail" goes back to Indo European "sek," which had the idea "to cut." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "seglom/seglam," with the meaning "a piece of cut cloth used to propel a ship or boat;  a sail," apparently a meaning developed only in Germanic, but borrowed by some Celtic dialects. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "segel/segl," meaning a "sail." The "g" sound eventually disappeared as a separate sound, blending with a long "e" sound to produce a long "a" sound, a process that happened similarly with other English words once having a "g" sound (the "g" also disappeared in some other Germanic languages, see below), like "rain," which once was "regn" (standard German still retains the "g" as "Regen," but when you hear some German speakers pronounce it, the "g" is barely audible, and I wouldn't be surprised if, like in English, the "g" is no longer present in some German dialects); "say" was "secgan" (standard German still has "sagen, although again, not always audible);  and "day" was once "daeg" (German has "Tag," with the ending "g" pronounced as "k" [the "a" is pronounced like the "a" in father, but when used for "daily," German too uses a long "a" sound in the related "täglich]). Old English also had the verb form "seglan/seglian." Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Segel," Low German Saxon has "Sail" and "Segel," Dutch has "zeil," West Frisian and Norwegian have "seil," Danish has "sejl," Icelandic has "segl," and Swedish has "segel." These are all noun forms, but there are verb forms too.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Two

This was first published in November 2012


 "Bush's Poll Numbers Plummet"

President Bush wanted to deal with the huge federal budget deficit and he had to work with Democratic majorities in both houses to accomplish that. Democrats wanted some tax increases as a part of any deal and Republicans, especially hard line conservatives, wanted only budget cuts. For Bush, his campaign pledge, "Read my lips, no new taxes," was a major obstacle for him, but the President made the commitment to keep tax increases as part of the negotiations. The deal reached cut spending by more than $300 billion and raised revenues by a little more than $150 billion over a five year period. The deal had a provision for any new spending or tax cuts to be offset by some form of spending cuts and/or tax increases elsewhere. The bill passed the Senate with 35 Democrats and 20 Republicans voting FOR the bill and 19 Democrats and 25 Republicans voting AGAINST the measure, and it passed the House with 217 Democrats and 10 Republicans voting FOR and 40 Democrats and 163 Republicans voting AGAINST the bill. President Bush deserves credit for putting the country first and his political party, and his own ego, second. It takes a big person to go against "Read my lips, no new taxes," and his party's increasingly venomous right wing, which attacked him for supporting and signing the legislation. Bush and congressional leaders formed a coalition to get the legislation passed, based upon compromise for the good of the nation. George Bush also drew the wrath of the NRA (National Rifle Association), which had essentially become part of the Republican coalition (with some exceptions), when he supported a ban on the import of some semi-automatic weapons.

Another major event during Bush's presidency was his nomination of Clarence Thomas for a seat on the Supreme Court. Thomas was a black conservative Republican judge chosen by Bush to replace retiring black progressive judge, Thurgood Marshall. Interest groups from both sides of the political spectrum mobilized over the Thomas nomination. The nomination hearings reached fever pitch, with millions of Americans tuned in, when Anita Hill, a lawyer who had worked with Thomas when he was her supervisor, testified that he had made inappropriate sexual remarks to her, perhaps constituting sexual harassment. President Bush, pressed by conservatives to stick with, and to fight for, the nomination, did so. The bitter process ended with Thomas winning confirmation by a narrow margin, as eleven Democrats voted for his confirmation, while only two Republicans opposed it.

The Bush bashing by many conservatives and the slipping economy brought Bush's popularity plummeting back to earth from the stratosphere, where he once had 85-90% approval. The blood was in the water and the political sharks began circling the figure struggling to stay afloat, George Bush, who now looked more and more vulnerable in the upcoming election.

Next, the 1992 Election  

WORD HISTORY:
Clout-Like its close relatives "clot" and "clod,"^ this word goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," with the same general meanings.This then produced Old Germanic "klutaz," which had the notion of  "piece of material" ("something put together"), and also, "material used to cover something." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "clut," meaning "piece of cloth or other material used to cover something." This of course carries the original notion of "fixing or having something adhere to." Later, the meaning "hit" developed, and the Oxford Dictionary makes a good point about the possible origin of this change in meaning, as it notes that a target long ago was likely a piece of cloth or some other object fixed to a tree or post, and that the idea of hitting that target transferred the meaning to "clout," likely first through a verb form, and with the noun then meaning "a hit, a blow." In American English the "hit" idea then developed into the figurative "political power; strong influence" as in, "The mayor has clout with the city council." Its use in English for a "piece of cloth," and a "handkerchief" is now archaic. Of the other Germanic languages still retaining the meaning "cloth" in some form: Danish still has "klud," with the meaning "rag" or "piece of cloth," Icelandic has "klútur," meaning "handkerchief," Norwegian has "klut," meaning "rag." If you have been following this progression so far, from "clot" and "clod" to "clout," you may be able to guess what the next word will be. 

^ See the "Word History" in "It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part 21" for "clot/clod."
 http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/11/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_9286.html
   

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Four

Additional note relating to "Part Three": With Catholic Al Smith as the Democratic candidate, Republican Herbert Hoover won some states of the "old Confederacy" (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Texas) and some so called "border states" (West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri). This is something I should have mentioned.

The Great Depression brought big change to America and to American politics. From the Civil War era to the election in 1932 (the Great Depression), the country was essentially Republican-leaning. That doesn't mean Democrats didn't win elections between the Civil War and the Great Depression, as Grover Cleveland won two non-consecutive terms* and Woodrow Wilson served two terms, and the make up of Congress switched hands several times.** Likewise, while the country was Democratic-leaning from Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932 until about 1980, that doesn't mean Republicans could not win, especially the presidency, where Dwight Eisenhower served two terms and Richard Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford, served two terms (combined). The difference between the Democratic-leaning era and the former Republican-leaning era was in the control of Congress, as Republicans had great difficulty beginning with the 1932 election.***

The thing to remember is, while Democrats controlled Congress much of the time, the two parties each still had a large left wing and a large right wing, forcing compromise within their own ranks, not to mention in Congress, or with the President. That doesn't mean there weren't some hot battles between Republicans and Democrats, or perhaps more especially within each party. I'll cover these soon.

There are a good many facts and figures in this article, so I'll leave it here until "Part Five."

* Grover Cleveland was the only president to win two non consecutive terms.

** Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1875-1881, again from 1883-1889, again from 1891-1895 and 1911-1917. The 1930 midterm election actually had the Republicans keep control of the House by a narrow margin, but in those days, Congress did not meet as regularly as today, and by the time the House convened, Democrats had won enough special elections to fill vacancies caused by the death of several House members to take control. Just to keep things in perspective, remember, congressional elections took place in the fall of a year, but the new Congress did not convene until the next year. As to the Senate, Democrats controlled the Senate from 1879-1881, 1893-1895, and 1913-1919. Note that from the beginning of the republic until 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures, not by a direct vote of the people. The 17th Amendment made popular election of senators the law.

*** Republicans only controlled the House in 1947-1949 and 1953-1955, it was not until the House convened in 1995 that Republicans again had a majority. The situation in the Senate was similar, as Republicans controlled the upper house in 1947-1949 and at times during 1953-1955. During that last, the 1952 election gave the Republicans a majority, but deaths and resignations of some members caused the majority to wobble back and forth between the two parties.

WORD HISTORY:
House- It may surprise you to learn that the ultimate origins of this common and important word are uncertain. Some have made a pretty good case that it is related to "hide;" that is, "skin," in English now usually "skin of an animal," although I'm sure all of us heard from one parent or another, "I'm going to tan your hide!" It was the main general English word for "skin" long ago, before "skin" replaced it, and it remains such in some other Germanic languages to this day. Animal hides were commonly used to provide clothing and to cover dwellings long ago, and that might just be the source of "house," but I'm not totally sold, so I'll take up with its Old Germanic form "husan," which meant "house, dwelling," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hus," with the same meaning. This later became "hous," before the modern version. The verb was derived from the noun. Forms are common throughout the other Germanic languages: German has "Haus," Low German Saxon has "Huus," West Frisian has "hús," Dutch has "huis," Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish have "hus," and Icelandic has "hús."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Two

For those who missed "Part One" or who need a refresher:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/07/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part.html

Unlike in most other democratic nations, the American governmental system has a President of the United States serving as both the "head of state" and as "head of the government." As "head of state" the President conducts foreign policy, including meeting with leaders of other countries, negotiating agreements with other countries,* and signing agreements or formal treaties. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such, he can appoint or dismiss high-level military personnel.**

Now, with treaties, the President can negotiate and conclude such agreements, BUT treaties must pass the U.S. Senate by a two-thirds margin to be ratified, so the President's power is not absolute. In a major defeat, President Woodrow Wilson failed to get Senate ratification for the Versailles (Peace) Treaty, with its section for the establishment of the League of Nations after World War One. So even a peace treaty to end a major war is not a certainty. The thing is, a President must be willing to work with members of the Senate to try to gain ratification and that can mean coalition building.

Also unlike in many other democracies, American political figures themselves at all levels are much more in view than party platforms. In fact, while party platforms are contested within the respective parties by various factions, the platforms themselves rarely take center stage in the actual political campaign. No, Americans tend to vote on the individuals involved, rather than the political parties; that is, at least in theory.*** The focus on the candidates and not the parties has caused consternation among some, who feel that "personality" dominates more than substance. During my life I've heard many a person say, "I wish the President (or Governor, or Mayor) would just do what he wants and forget about the polls." That all sounds nice, but it is naive, as American voters do not like to be ignored. During the early years of the Great Depression, admittedly a stressful time, President Herbert Hoover had a tin ear for public opinion. Hoover was not reelected.

Until the last few decades, party affiliation did not necessarily tell us much about a candidate's overall political views, and it still doesn't, especially more where Democrats are concerned. Up until fairly recently, there were Democrats in Congress who often voted with Republicans and Republicans who often voted with Democrats. While I sort of liked those days, the notion they would last was also naive, as much more ideological forces came into play, with the Republican Party becoming more of the true conservative coalition party of the country, including both traditional conservatives on money matters and social ideas, but also much more hard line, "fire breathing" right-wingers and religious fundamentalists. Earlier, generally speaking, Democrats had fashioned a coalition of working class people, organized labor, minorities (especially Black Americans and many non-Cuban Latinos, as voters of Cuban heritage tended to be more Republican), many women's groups, and liberal middle class and liberal wealthy Americans. During the late 1960s and early 1970s the Democratic Party began to have difficulty convincing some Americans about their commitment to the military defense of the country (fairly or unfairly), as anti-war groups (primarily Vietnam War, but even more general) became a highly visible part of the Democratic coalition. Republicans quickly promoted themselves as the party of national defense. Keep in mind, there were always a certain number of independent or swing voters, even within some of the various voter groups noted above.

If you are interested in the subject of political systems, try your local library. A good source, which I used to some degree for the first two parts of this series, is, "The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems," published by Oxford University Press, 2009.

More in "Part Three"   

* Presidents don't typically sit down and negotiate every detail of an agreement or treaty, but a President will have the final say on all of the provisions in such treaties. Many American treaties for the first century or more had to do with treaties with various American Indian tribes. Woodrow Wilson went to Europe after World War One to try to help fashion a treaty that would maintain peace. Franklin D. Roosevelt met with other Allied leaders during World War Two, even discussing many details of agreements for the postwar world; still, many of the actual details had been worked out earlier or even during these conferences by other officials.

** Of course one of the most famous presidential interventions came when Harry Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.

*** Straight ticket voting; that is, voting for all candidates from one party, was once very common. Today, voters "tend" to cross back and forth on the ballot, like voting for a President from one party, a senator from the same party, but a congressperson from the other party. Further down the ballot, local offices probably get even more back and forth voting than the state or national offices, as political ideology is not usually seen as being quite as important in these offices. It would be tedious work, coupled with a lot of guessing, but it would be interesting to see how the nation fared during times of "one party" domination; by that I mean, times when the President, and both houses of Congress were substantially controlled by one party. I say "substantially," because while votes in the House of Representatives are based upon a majority vote, the Senate is more complex, and it often requires at least 60 votes (out of the present 100 members) to pass a bill, and, as noted above, a two-thirds affirmative vote is required to ratify a treaty. A two-thirds majority vote in BOTH houses of Congress is required to override a presidential veto of legislation, but a veto of legislation in one party domination, in theory, would not be likely. I mention this, as "one party" domination would put the U.S. closer to how other democratic nations operate, as indicated in "Part One." In more recent U.S. history, Americans have seemed to send mixed signals; electing a President from one party, but either putting Congress in control of the opposition party, or making it so evenly divided (especially the Senate) that getting legislation through is difficult, if not at times, impossible. While congressional Republicans in both houses have "tended" to be more unified than their Democratic opponents, still, getting at least 60 Americans to agree what time it is can be very difficult.  

WORD HISTORY:
System-This word is actually a compound. It was borrowed into English in the early 1600s, probably from French "systeme," or directly from Latin "systema." Latin had borrowed it from Greek "systema." It goes back to Indo European "syn," which had the notion of "together, united," and Indo European "sta/steh," which meant "to stand;" thus, "stand together, stand united," which is what a "system" is; parts united that make something work or function.

Moderation Takes Another Hit

Moderation in American politics is being squeezed. Longtime moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine has decided against running for another term. She cited the polarized atmosphere in the U.S. Senate as the main reason for her decision to retire, and she said the Senate has become "dysfunctional."

Moderates are always under some fire, simply because they don't always satisfy those more committed to a particular ideology, and they almost never satisfy those VERY committed to a particular philosophy. Unfortunately, I don't see any end to this situation, which has been developing in fits and spurts for decades, but which has intensified in more recent times, as a fairly large number of very conservative Republicans have been elected to both houses of Congress, threatening to take the country back to varying degrees of the Middle Ages, the Iron Age, and the Stone Age. Opponents of this agenda seem to have no other choice than to hold the line just as fanatically against a headlong retreat into the distant past.* Many more moderate and traditional Republican officeholders or candidates have moved rightward in an effort to retain their offices (or gain office) in the face of the highly activist conservative rightwing. We certainly see this with Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican, who now has almost gotten to the point of beating his chest to prove how conservative he is.

So Olympia Snowe will be gone. She tried to do as her former Republican Senate leader, Bob Dole, did; that is, " to reach across the aisle" to the other party and come to agreements that may not have satisfied the hard left or the hard right, but which tried to do what was good for the nation, not what was good for an ideology. I will miss you Senator Snowe, and so will the nation.

* In a certain "odd" way, "progressives" have become sort of "conservatives," as they have had to react to the aggressive push by the right wing to turn back the clock.

WORD HISTORY:
Snow-This word goes back to Indo European "sneigwh/snoigwh," which meant "snow." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "snaiwaz," which produced Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "snaw," with a long "a" sound, which then became "snow," the version that has endured for many hundreds of years. The verb was derived from the noun. Common in the other Germanic languages: (these are the noun forms) German has "Schnee," Low German Saxon has "Snee," West Frisian has "snie," Dutch has "sneeuw," Danish has "sne," Norwegian has "snø," Swedish has "snö," and Icelandic has "snjór."

Congress & The President Finish Year With A Flourish

For a President and a Congress that have seemed disjointed for much of the past two years, they sure put on the full-court press in the last two weeks. With the midterm election now history, even a number of Republicans seemed interested in helping to govern the country. The President finally seemed to decide to grab the reins of government and set the agenda, instead of ceding the stage to congressional Democrats. What a refreshing change.* While I didn't completely agree with the President's initial compromise over tax cuts for very wealthy people, including a substantial lowering of the estate tax,** I still have to give him pretty good marks for the last few weeks. Like him, not like him, or indifferent to him, he is the President for at least the next two years, and the country needs a functioning president.

Will the joy and celebration continue? That's the bad news....I doubt it. If nothing else, the race for the White House in 2012 is developing. Republicans will control the House of Representatives and their representation in the Senate will grow, although control remains in Democratic hands. If you think the last two years have been contentious, these next two years COULD resemble a new civil war. We'll have to see what happens. (A Word History is below the notes)

* I have much in common with many congressional Democrats, but Democrats have always been a diverse and somewhat raucous party, and trying to get Democrats in Congress to agree on the time of day can be a thrilling undertaking, let alone trying to get Republicans to go along.

** Until the huge, and growing, income gap is dealt with (and the huge budget deficit), you're not going to hear me say how great it is to lower taxes on the richest Americans.

WORD HISTORY:
Deal-This word, in the noun form, goes back to Indo European "dail/dhail," which meant "divide." This gave Old Germanic "dailiz/dailaz," meaning "part, share, portion." This then gave Old English "dael," with the same meaning. By the Middle English period it had become "dele," and then it moved to the modern spelling. The Old English verb form was "daelan," meaning "to divide, to separate, to distribute." The use in cards is the notion of "distributing the cards to each player," which supposedly began use in the 1500s. The idea of "bargain" comes from the notion of "portion," with the parties involved getting a "portion" for their own interest. The word, in its various forms, is quite common in the Germanic languages: German has "Teil" (teilen, in the verb form), some Low German dialects have "Deel," Dutch has "deel," West Frisian has "diel," Norwegian and Danish have "del," Swedish has both "del" and "dela," Icelandic has "deila;" all with the same basic notion of "part, share, portion."

The Ant In The Room

For the last few years there has been great chatter in the political world about congressional "earmarks." Many a politician has appeared before a television camera and a microphone, thumped his chest, and delivered a message about how he opposes the use of earmarks, and telling us just how dastardly these little buggers are. The interesting thing is, often, but not always, when that same politician's record is examined, it is found that he/she has used earmarks more than some people shower. (Sniff, sniff......ahh, I'll be right back.) In fact, it has not been out of the question for that person to have earmarks in legislation at the same time they are appearing before the television cameras, telling Americans how much they oppose them. The other day, a Republican senator was doing a television interview. He said how bad earmarks are and that funding the government would not go forward until earmarks were removed from any appropriations. The interviewer than asked him, "If earmarks are so bad, why do you have one in the current bill before Congress?" He didn't know what to say, so he did the "Washington Shuffle," and said as little as possible, but came back to his point about how bad earmarks are. That brought the questioner back to why he had an earmark in the current bill. He then at least tried to justify the earmark (I don't remember the actual item he had inserted into the bill). You can't have this stuff both ways; "I'm against these terrible things, except when they're for my constituents." He got caught!

How many of you know what an earmark is? I'll bet not many can answer that, except that for all of the "noise" about them in recent years, you are supposed to be against them. While a true definition has not be agreed upon, essentially earmarks are specific items inserted into appropriations legislation that are not debated or even given scrutiny during the legislative process. Okay, what the hell does that mean? (Just an example) Your congressperson wants to get money allocated for a new (federal) courthouse in his/her district. He/she gets with your state's two senators* to get their support for the project. The money for the new courthouse is inserted into an appropriation bill, and if the legislation passes, that money is now specifically designated to go to the building of that new courthouse. The merits of the new courthouse are not debated.**

The thing about "earmarks" is, the individual projects are not all necessarily wrong or wasteful spending, as has often been portrayed by some politicians or some commentators. Perhaps the existing courthouse is in such bad repair, that a new courthouse is really needed. The problem with earmarks is, they do not face the light of day during the legislative process. On the other side of the coin, that courthouse may not really be needed, and the representative (and senator or senators) are just trying to help their re-election chances, or help building contractors and building trades in their district, maybe even as sort of a "payoff" for campaign contributions.***

Now, another thing: Just this past week, there was an appropriations bill before Congress totaling well over a trillion dollars (it was to fund several departments). Of that amount, eight billion was in earmarks by both Democrats and Republicans (including by the Republican senator mentioned above). Now, I'm not here to defend "earmarks," as I believe they should be publicly debated, but with the clamor raised by Republicans over this bill, one might have thought this would all wipe out the federal budget deficit. While all projects need the light of day, the hub bub over the eight billion out of more than a trillion is pure political theater by the Republicans, some of whom had earmarks in THIS VERY BILL! Throughout this past election campaign, Republican candidates had every chance to be specific about the things they would cut in order to reduce the federal deficit. Few took that challenge, preferring to rely upon the standard "Waste, fraud, and abuse," and of course, "earmarks!" So "earmarks" have been used to build a mountain out of a molehill. (To be fair, Democrats weren't much better.) Imagine this: There are a million killer bees in your house, but Randy shouts, "Look...an ant!" (A Word History is below the notes)

* As I noted, this is just an example, and both senators may not even agree to insertion of the earmark into the legislation, but it sure helps to have at least one of the state's senators on board.

** Typically, Congress appropriates money to the various departments of the government and those departments and their lower level departments decide how the money will be spent. With earmarks, that whole process is circumvented, since the earmarked project is specifically mentioned in the enacted legislation, it is the law that the specific amount go to that project.

*** New projects obviously mean jobs for workers and money for business people, but that isn't necessarily bad either, it all depends upon the validity of the project.

WORD HISTORY:
Ear-This word for a common body part (the "ear" as in "ear of corn" does not have the same origin, so while spelled the same in modern times, it is not the same word) goes back to the Indo European root "aus/ous," which may have had the notion of "perception," rather than specifically "ear," as some Indo European languages related to English further down the family tree have words derived from this root that pertain to "perception," although one source says it meant "ear." This root gave Old Germanic "auzon," which then gave Anglo-Saxon "eare," which later became "ere," before the modern spelling. Relatives of "ear" are widespread in the Germanic languages: German has "Ohr," Low Saxon German has "Ohr," Dutch has "oor," Frisian has "ear," Norwegian and Danish have "øre," Swedish has "öra," and Icelandic has "eyra." At this time, I am not exactly sure why the Germanic languages all have an "r" in them, although Gothic, an old Germanic dialect/language that has now died out, had "auso," which is close to the original Old Germanic "auzon."

Paying The Piper-Part Five-Trade With "China"

First, I am skipping ahead to "Part Five," but I will be backtracking to more about President Obama in Part Four.

This bill, H.R. 4444, established "normal" trade relations with China (mainland). It was sometimes referred to as the "China Trade Bill:"

Vote in House Of Representatives, May 24, 2000:
Yes: 237 (73 Democrats- 163 Republicans) No: 197 (135 Democrats- 59 Republicans-1 Independent) Not Voting: 1 (Republican)

Vote in Senate, September 19, 2000:
Yes: 83 (32 Democrats- 40 Republicans) No: 15 (7 Democrats- 7 Republicans-1 Independent) Not Voting: 2 (Democrats)

Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, October 10, 2000.

WORD HISTORY:
Vote-I found a reference to a possible Indo European base, but I found no other source supporting that base, so I'll leave that part open. "Vote" goes back to the Latin participle form of "vovere," which was "votus," and this gave Latin the noun form "votom/votum." The meaning of the Latin terms were "vow, promise, wish." In the mid 1500s, English borrowed the terms, but with the still prevalent meanings of modern English: "a wish for a desired candidate or issue" (noun) and the verb form, "to express a desire for a candidate or issue."

Paying The Piper-Part Two-Dominican Republic-Central America-US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

This agreement was approved and passed the US House of Representatives on July 28, 2005. The vote was:
217 YES (202 Republicans-15 Democrats) vs. 215 NO (187 Democrats-27 Republicans-1 Independent)-2 Not Voting (both Republicans).

The vote in the US Senate, also on July 28, 2005:
55 YES (43 Republicans-11 Democrats-1 Independent) vs. 45 NO (34 Democrats-11 Republicans).

Signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2005.

WORD HISTORY:
Yes-This goes back to Old English "gese," which is assumed by many linguists to be a compound of "gea," the ancestor of "Yea," and "se/si," which was the third person subjunctive or imperative (I found differing info), which was a form of "be" in Old English; thus giving us the idea of "yea, may it be so," or "yea, so be it." "Yea" goes back to Indo European "ye," which then gave Old Germanic "ja." "Yea" and "yes" are closely related to the affirmative words in other Germanic languages: German has "ja" (pronounced "ya," with the "j" pronounced as "y," and the "a" as the "a" in father), Icelandic has "já," Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish all have "ja."

What Now On Health Care?

It ain't...I mean it isn't over yet. The Senate must now follow through with the so called "fixes" to the legislation that just passed and is now the law of the land.* I must admit, especially after the loss of the senate seat by Democrats in Massachusetts in January, that any attempt to pass health care legislation was doomed. So what changed? Well, the President finally stepped up to the plate just a few weeks ago and actually put some specifics to what HE wanted in the legislation, and also what HE didn't want in the legislation. The President and the Democratic leadership in Congress also made the choice to keep going, in spite of the odds. Many, but certainly not all, Democratic House members seen as either vulnerable in their re-election bids, or pretty much already "toast," along with some retiring members, were convinced to vote for the bill, regardless of any political considerations for the upcoming election. Trust me folks, that is no small accomplishment. In fact, the main reason I thought the legislation was essentially dead, is that congressional members almost always look out for themselves (not unlike "us" out here in the public). It took tremendous courage for some members of Congress to vote "yes." Polls showed an uptick in public support for the legislation to varying degrees, I'm sure at least partially due to "Democrats coming home," if you will, as many Dems were disappointed in the legislation. However, when given a choice between something or nothing, they chose "something," and it is a foundation. It will cover millions of presently uninsured Americans, it will allow children to remain on their parents' insurance until age 26, and it will bar denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.** If you lose your job, at least you will have somewhere to turn for medical help, too. These are some significant and history-making changes. They should help alleviate much suffering and potentially save many lives.

If you're weary of all this debate over health care, you more than likely will need to be prepared for this to go on for quite some time yet, even if the Senate passes the "fixes" soon, followed by passage by the House and then the President's signature to a final health care measure. By "final," I only mean about the current legislation, as this will undoubtedly be an ongoing process, probably for years to come. The legislation is not perfect, in my opinion, but it is a start. Further, Republicans are drooling to use this legislation to beat Democrats over the head in the midterm elections in an attempt to take control of the House of Representatives, some thing they may well do, although everything will now have to be reassessed since Sunday's House vote.

No question about it, Democrats OWN this legislation. Not one Republican broke ranks. In all of my years of following politics, I've NEVER seen such nastiness come from so many people from one political party. I thought some of the conspiracy stuff about George W. Bush and 9/11 was way out there, but this stuff makes that pale in comparison, as the 9/11 stuff was out on the fringe.*** This was a concerted effort by many Republican officeholders, and as David Frum, a Republican and a former member of the Bush Administration (George W., that is) said in a television interview, the Republicans have been giving encouragement to some of the most nasty elements in our society (that is NOT a direct quote, but rather a paraphrasing of his comments), and attacking a bill that is essentially what Mitt Romney supported while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney is a Republican and a potential presidential candidate for 2012.

The Republicans had some good ideas, like creating more competition for insurance companies by permitting insurance sales across state lines. They had some valid concerns, too, like the overall cost and if the legislation would add to the deficit, but for quite some time, they really just did NOT want ANY legislation to pass. The idea that the Republic is somehow in danger because people might actually get health insurance is pure NONSENSE! (A "Word History" is below the notes)

* Of course the President must first sign the legislation, if he hasn't already.

** To be quite honest, insurance companies are (and have been) only following what is in their best interest (financially). If I go to an insurer and say I have XY & Z wrong with me, they are more than likely going to turn me down, or they'll make the premiums so high that I can't afford the insurance. The rich suffer (no pun intended) no such problem, as they can either afford the high premiums or they just pay for whatever treatments and medications they need, as money is no object.

*** I recently heard some people on the political Right say they believed that "the government was behind 9/11," so it wasn't just leftwingers spouting this stuff. I may be wrong, but I believe they identified themselves as "Tea Party" supporters.

WORD HISTORY:
Hospital-This word goes back to Indo European "ghostis," which meant "stranger." The Latin offshoot was "hospes," which meant "guest or host" (I suppose depending upon usage. For instance, "rent" can mean "something you pay" or "something you collect," depending upon usage). This then gave Latin the stem word "hospit," and then "hospitalis," (with a long "a" sound) which meant "of a guest/host" (again, supposedly depending upon usage). From this later developed the noun "hospitale," for a "guest house, inn, place where guests are sheltered." Old French, heavily Latin-based, continued the word as "hospital/hospitale," but still with the same meaning. English acquired the word from French during the 1200s with the meaning "charitable place to care for the needy." By the 1400s, the meaning also included "care/shelter for the elderly and infirm." During the 1500s the modern meaning of "place to care for and treat the ill or injured" came into use. Hospitality, derived from the same source, still retains the "treatment of guests" notion.