FOXTOPUS, A Good Name For Fox News

Well we've all heard the use of "octopus" for someone who can't keep their hands to themselves, especially on a date, and especially in reference to the places where they like to put their hands. Since Fox News has been dealing with the likes of Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, and as Fox News has been in support of the "P---y Grabber-in-Chief," Donald Trump, I'd say a good name for them is, "FOXTOPUS." Hopefully they'll like the name; they've earned it.

WORD HISTORY:
Sleazy (Sleaze)-The word "sleazy" seems to have come from a "cute" English pronunciation in the 1600's for German "Schlesien" (German pronunciation as if, "schlay-zee-en," thus English "sleazy"). Schlesien (English form: "Silesia") was then a German region ^ known for the production of cloth, which was often a German export. Indeed, the English form, Silesia," was used as a word for the cloth. The cloth was thin, thus "flimsy," and this meaning began to be attached to the word, which eventually broadened beyond the cloth itself. From this "flimsy" meaning, came the further meaning, "low quality," which then broadened to, "someone of low character (20th Century);" thus, "The sleazy councilman in the neighborhood took bribes from drug dealers." Also the meaning, "a place of low or dirty repute;" thus, "We're entering a sleazy part of town, where all sorts of illegal activities go on." The noun "sleaze" was derived from the adjective (mid 20th Century?). 

^ Today, due to border adjustments after World War Two, parts of the "Silesia" region are in Poland, the Czech Republic (Czechia) and Germany.   

The Growing Danger Of American Reactionary Fascism

This was first published in August of 2014.

Elements of fascism have been around for a long, long time, before there was a general term for them. Generally speaking, it was Benito Mussolini, a former socialist, and some other Italians, who combined some of these elements into a true political movement after World War One. Mussolini took power in Italy quite quickly, as he became Prime Minister (also known by some as "Premier") of Italy in October of 1922. Mussolini's rise to power and the overall postwar situation in various parts of the world, especially in Germany, Austria and Hungary,* brought copycat fascist political movements elsewhere, although with national variations from the Italian brand.

The defeat of major fascist led countries Germany (which then included Austria) and Italy in World War Two undoubtedly led many to believe fascism was no longer a big threat to the world, although fascist governments remained in power, notably in Spain and Portugal, and another notable fascist-like leader would take over in Argentina, Juan Perón. In the United States, the Great Depression had seen the increased popularity of radio broadcasts by a Michigan Roman Catholic priest named Father Charles Coughlin, who gradually incorporated many fascist ideas, including anti-Jewish rants and hatred, into his speeches and talks, as he became a major critic of President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.** The beginning of World War Two in Europe in 1939 seemingly shook Americans back to their senses, and Coughlin's overall popularity declined. The 1950s saw the rise of one George Lincoln Rockwell, a former American military officer, who latched onto Hitlerian hatreds of Jews and non-white people. He eventually founded the American Nazi Party, complete with all of the hatred and nonsense espoused by Nazism's former nutcase-in-chief, Hitler.

Back in the 1960s my father was an auditor for an auto parts company (supplier). This brought him some extra work, as parts' dealers would occasionally hire him to take inventories for them, and a couple of times, he took me with him to help. I don't recall the exact year this happened, but I'll guess like 1967 or 1968. While we were on one of these inventory jobs, someone had placed Nazi pamphlets on the windshields of the cars in the area where my father's car was parked. It's been so long ago I can't recall everything, but I believe the pamphlet was all in black and white (no racial reference intended), with several crude cartoon like drawings depicting Jews and Black Americans in derogatory caricatures. While I don't remember the exact content, there was Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" quote, followed by a picture of George Lincoln Rockwell and words something like, "But he has [or had] a dream too." *** The whole thing was quite appalling and after all of these years, I still remember that night.

The Great Depression had brought about a major political realignment in the United States, with Democrats "generally" becoming the governing majority for several decades, although Republicans did break the Democratic dominance on occasion, especially at the presidential level. Gradually voters seen as progressives shifted more and more into the Democratic Party, while voters seen as conservatives shifted into the Republican Party, until we arrived at where we are today. Increasingly conservative elements began to gain control of the GOP, where they were often seen, even by other Republicans, as "extremists." Arch conservative Republican and libertarian Barry Goldwater, the GOP presidential nominee in 1964, addressed the extremist tag by saying, "...extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Senator Thomas Kuchel, a moderate Republican from California, expressed concern and outright dismay in the mid 1960s about the extremist conservative infiltration of the GOP, and he called these elements "a neo fascist political cult ... driven by ... corrosive hatred and sickening fear ..." **** Again, this was in the mid 1960s, well before the major influx of former conservative Democrats, which gradually accelerated during the 1980s up until about a decade or so ago, which only concentrated and intensified the right wing fascist ideas of the GOP. The election of Barack Obama brought fascist racial, ethnic and religious hatred to something of a fever pitch, as former moderate and traditional conservative Republican officeholders shifted rightward, fearing their defeat in primaries by right wing candidates, who would have been laughed off the political stage less than a couple of decades ago.

Moderate and progressive Americans need to sit up and take notice of what's been going on, as right wing extremism has spread from the far right into the periphery of the mainstream, sold to the American public by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and others, including an organization hiding behind the cover of being a "news" organization, but which was founded with the direct purpose of supporting a political point of view, an organization headed by former Republican operative Roger Ailes; that organization being Fox News. I see comments posted online by those seemingly complacent individuals predicting the "demise of the Republican Party" (see book title in note **** below), this is nonsense, and it is very dangerous folks! In my lifetime I've heard such predictions about the demise of both parties. Remember, underestimating your enemy can be devastating, and these are not just political opponents, they are enemies, as they see anyone who does not toe their line as "the enemy," as can be seen by their attempts to force Republicans further to the political right, although some Republicans have begun fighting back. In the 1920s and early 1930s many Germans, including German Jews, thought it would never be possible for the ranting, far out, sort of crazy and almost comical looking Hitler and his Nazis to gain power; that educated Germans would never let it happen, but it did. After the Nazis took power, the anti-Nazis deluded themselves into thinking the Nazis could be held in check and that the nightmare would soon pass, but it didn't, and it got much, much worse, including war, mass murder and genocide. I see our own modern American reactionary nutcases for what they are .... FASCISTS!

* Germany, Austria and Hungary were all defeated in World War One, thus bringing attempts to place blame for their defeat elsewhere, like on leftist and communist elements of their respective nations. Adolf Hitler came to add an especially virulent racist element to his form of fascism, with an illogical obsession with Jews being its foremost principle. The Bolshevik takeover in Russia in late 1917 had added a particular sense of fear to wealthy (and definitely to the nobility) and middle class people in many European countries, and in the United States, especially during the Great Depression. This fear drove some, perhaps many, toward the various fascist movements in Europe, as fascist paramilitary forces and thugs, like Mussolini's Blackshirt units and Hitler's Stormtroopers, were likely seen as protectors against communist thugs (they had thugs too).

** Remember, there was no television in those times, so radio was a fast, direct and major way to reach large numbers of people. Coughlin also published a weekly newspaper/magazine to disseminate and promote his ideas.

*** If my memory serves me right, Rockwell's picture showed him with a corncob pipe, something he had adopted from General Douglas MacArthur, who was famous for such, and whom Rockwell deeply admired. I am not sure of the exact line used following Dr. King's quote, because Rockwell was assassinated in 1967 by a former American Nazi Party member, so whether it was in the present or past tense ("has" or "had"), I don't remember.

**** See: "Rule and Ruin (the Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party)," by Geoffrey M. Kabaservice, Oxford University Press, New York 2012, page 220.

WORD HISTORY:
Danger-The history of this fairly common word is a bit involved. It goes back to Indo European "domo/doma," which meant "house." This gave its Latin (Italic) offspring "domus," meaning "home," and then the derived "dominium," which meant "property," and then the derived "dominus,"  which meant "lord of the estate." This then produced "dominarium," which meant "the authority or power of the lord." This gave French, a Latin-based language, first "dongier, and then "dangier," meaning "power, authority." This was carried to England by the Normans, where it was altered to "daunger," with the same meaning, and it was borrowed into English in the 1200s. The idea of  "power or authority over others," also had come to mean "power to punish, do harm to," and this gradually became "the risk or fear of harm," the meaning it still carries today.  

Working People Need To See The Forest AND The Trees

For those who are terribly worried about the plight of millionaires and billionaires, let me reassure you: they'll be fine! I had a troubling conversation with an acquaintance the other day. He's working class and in his 50s and of Chinese background (born in the U.S.). He proceeded to tell me how "the government" (his term) has forced so many corporations to move facilities and jobs to China and other countries. When I asked him just what he meant, he mentioned regulations about clean air, clean water, employment and also business taxes. He cited his source as Fox News. Okay, so here we have a guy who makes, at most I'm sure, $1,500 a month, and likely closer to $1,200 a month, who has had car trouble a couple of times just since the first of the year (a 2000 model car), yet he's spouting the propaganda nonsense of the wealthiest Americans, all provided to him by Fox News. Let me tell you something, the richest Americans did NOT move facilities and jobs out of the country because they were fearful they couldn't pay the electric bill for their chauffeur's bedroom or because they weren't making big money. They did it to make MORE money. Now you can say, "That's fine," but then let's dispense with all the anti-government rigamarole and tell us what you really mean. Let's hear what it really means: like, "I don't give a good damn if you choke to death in air pollution, or die from poisoned water, or get lead poisoning, or you can't get a job (or hold a job) because you're a minority, or a woman, or gay, or are 55 or 60 years old. I want MORE money!" (But you have lots of money.) "This is a free country and I can make however much I want, and I'm going to make it in China, because I can make there without worrying about clean air, clean water, your damnable employment because of your age, gender or ethnic background." (That's not very patriotic.) "Patriotic? I'm a true, red blooded American, and I'm religious too." (What if there are government upheavals in some of the countries where you now have facilities?) "Well the U.S. government better just get their behinds into action to protect my interests." (So if that means sending troops into harms way, "boots on the ground," as some Republicans like to always say, that would be okay?) "You're damned right! (So the Americans you put out of work because of those "damnable employment regulations" should send their sons and daughters to defend you?) "You got it."

Why non wealthy Americans would rise to defend the interests of the super wealthy is beyond me. The system is meant to be contentious, and if you aren't contentious, about the only thing they'll give you is the middle finger, just as so many have been doing by moving jobs overseas. For those who continue to say, "I want to keep making my $8.00 an hour, duh," don't expect any gratitude in return from the super wealthy. No, you can't even see your own self interest, but they ALWAYS see their own self interest. Remember, they didn't go through all of the outsourcing of jobs and support union busting politicians so they could pay you more, they want to pay you less! That's what all of this is about. One thing is for sure, they ARE greedier than you, and they are willing to destroy you to try to satisfy their greed. All at a time when the wealthiest segment of America is making more money and taking a greater percentage of the national income than perhaps since the latter part of the 1800s!      

And get this, the super money making is not limited to just some industries or businesses, as even Goodwill Industries, a "non profit" business that exists to help train and employ people with employment disadvantages, including disabilities, pays some workers less than the minimum wage, including some who make about a quarter an hour! (Just to be clear, this is legal under specific circumstances.) At the same time, executives for many of Goodwill's branches make hundreds of thousands of dollars, with some making anywhere from a half million to more than one million dollars a year. I guess the "non profit" designation must refer to the workers. I don't mean to just cite Goodwill, but this just goes to show how this "money to the richest" philosophy has permeated the entire American business world, where the wealthiest feel ENTITLED to make not just more than 99% of other Americans, but gazillions more! This is a philosophy that will continue the decline of the country. All the while Americans are bombarded with advertisements telling us "to buy this new phone with all sorts of gadgets, most which you won't be able to figure out how to use by the time we release the next super gadget phone," or "get the latest cable or satellite TV package with 55,000,000 channels, 54,999,988 you'll never watch, but if you don't get this package you're a loser," or "get your tickets to the next game and sit right up close to see that 5 million dollar a year shortstop for just $300 for four tickets, and don't forget to bring plenty of money with you, because we've got some deals for you, like 4 cups of beer for $30.00 and 4 hotdogs for just $16.00, what a deal, that less than fifty dollars."

Then there's the political side of things. Here in Ohio Republican John Kasich defeated Democratic incumbent governor Ted Strickland in 2010 in part by running a television ad telling Ohioans that his father had been a mailman and how he therefore related to working people. No sooner had he taken office than he and other Republicans in the state legislature began an assault to gut unions, an assault that ended with an embarrassing trouncing for Republicans in a referendum on the issue. Don't be fooled; forget the "my father was a mailman" story, this was about camouflaging the shift of more money to the wealthy by destroying unions, along with wage, benefit, job protection and safety provisions unions help to set for all workers, including non union workers. If we allow unions to be destroyed, no whining about our treatment at the hands of ruthless greed. We deserve it! I make NO apologies to the wealthiest of the wealthy, or to John Kasich, I proudly stand for unions! The object of conservative policy seems always to be, "we've got to cut middle class and poor Americans so that we can give tax cuts to the wealthy." At least that argument  would sound half way sane, if the wealthy were in decline, but they are doing better than anytime in more than a century; it is the middle class and the poor who are under siege With so much excess money in their hands, the wealthy can influence all sorts of financial markets to their advantage very easily and also tamper with the political system. The Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) that essentially said that corporations are people and that corporations (who owns corporations? The wealthiest Americans) can contribute unlimited sums of money to political causes and permits special political groups to act as attack dogs (used by both major parties) by using money from anonymous donors is perhaps the biggest blow to American democracy yet. America was once the progressive source of democracy for the world, now we've become regressive, with increasing power to the wealthy, the worst income inequality among developed nations, less social mobility (generally the ability to move upward in income level), the most expensive health care system, without necessarily a comparable benefit for the costs as compared to other developed nations,* a high rate of infant mortality, etc. Workers of America who support the conservative agenda and thus the wealthiest of the wealthy, I just want you to know, that expanse of trees is called a forest.

* For some very good information on the health care cost/benefit comparisons, see this PBS article:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

WORD HISTORY:
Curt-Like its relative "short," this word goes back to Indo European "sker," which meant "to cut," but without the beginning "s" sound. This gave its Latin offspring "curtus," which meant "short/shortened." Forms of the word spread through the Germanic languages, "seemingly" around 800-900 A.D., but English, unlike its close relatives, did not borrow the word at that time, retaining Germanic "short" to this day; the only Germanic language to retain the word as its main adjective word for "short." Exactly when English borrowed the word is somewhat unclear, but I "lean" toward 1350-1400, and it simply meant "brief," from which later developed the meaning "abrupt, blunt," its main meaning in modern times. German has "kurz" (meaning "short") which replaced "schurz," which had been the German form closely related to English "short." Low German Saxon, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch and Swedish all have "kort;" and West Frisian has "koart." As best I can tell, Icelandic does not use a form of "curt." As I noted above, "curt" and "short" are related, but "short" came from the Germanic branch of Indo European (English is a Germanic language), and "curt" came from the Italic/Latin branch of Indo European and was borrowed by many Germanic languages, including English.  

Rolling Back Fascism Is Not Easy, Part Five/Final

Ingrained within fascism has been a "survival of the fittest" code. This seems to appeal to some of the wealthiest people in society (and some others), but certainly not all.  When you aren't particularly worried about how you'll get your next meal or how you're going to pay your rent or electric bill, there might just be a tendency for a disconnect with those struggling to make ends meet, although there are certainly people who abuse the system. The thing is, not everyone getting some sort of assistance is a freeloader; yet, to hear those on the political right talk, the country is just teeming with a bunch of bums. Some of those who have screamed and whined the loudest, like Mitt Romney, have done very well in this country, and I just wonder if they've ever considered how much corporate welfare and questionable, if not outright wasteful, government money from government at all levels (federal, state, local), including for defense, has gone into the bank accounts of some of our wealthiest citizens. My "guess" is, there's been more of that abuse than by those citizens far, far down the economic ladder. The wealthy wouldn't have lobbyists otherwise. The poor can't afford to hire big time lobbyists. Unlike many poorer Americans, the wealthy aren't fighting for survival, they're fighting for "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money." Remember this slogan, "Success, not excess." We need to stop paying heed to those concerned with the plight of billionaires and millionaires, and get back to paying attention to America's struggling middle class and poor. The rich can and will take very good care of themselves, as they always have, but they will have to take less and workers at all levels will have to get more, and that means the wealthy will be kicking and screaming all the way, such is their sense of "entitlement." 

The survival of the fittest part of fascism also appeals to those who want virtually no rules or regulations, as that's true "survival of the fittest." They like the idea of returning to the pre-civilization era, before some humans started worrying about others and sharing certain things. Nope, in their narrow little world, you're on your own, except when it comes to fighting wars, then you MUST belong to their community or face severe consequences, including death.* Their ultimate point is to keep the government and economy from functioning so that people will turn to them. "Hate the government, shut down the government, try to stop the economy from recovering, stop Obama from succeeding, then let us establish a government," this lies behind their ideas.

Unions have declined, but that hasn't stopped the whining by wealthy interests, who have been rather successful in convincing many average people to support the war on unions with the tactic, "Support our anti-union plans and we'll give a job for $8.00 an hour." Of course, said under their breath and with a snicker is, "How you get by on such wages is YOUR problem, but we'll do just fine paying you eight bucks." Fascism always seeks to destroy unions to keep wealthy interests supporting them and to eliminate a source of organized opposition. Beware before it's too late! As I just noted, the economic meltdown brought on by deregulation and poor oversight of financial markets and banks has given wealthy interests a chance to exploit the fear of many average Americans by getting them to take less money and benefits and pitting workers against unions; "divide and conquer." Of course, the wealthiest Americans don't take less money, they take more! There's been little shared sacrifice; in fact, some wealthy interests have whined that they deserve more! As I've mentioned in previous articles, the Mr. Thurston Howell multimillionaire character from "Gilligan's Island" perhaps put it best when he heard that someone was spending some of his money, he said something to the effect, "Little does he care how hard other people worked to make me that money." This survival of the fittest mentality, if carried to its ultimate, would lead to the demise of mankind, as only one person, the most ruthless of all, would survive, and their ultimate death would extinguish humans. And of course, with no other humans to exploit, their death would probably come rather quickly.

Fascists seek to exclude others from their own self created little worlds where they dominate as an elite. Their warped minds build up false enemies as Hitler did with Jews. In this country the hate has spewed forth against African-Americans, Latinos, unions, and yes, sometimes Jews or Muslims. You can't maintain a nation by exclusion, including "undesirables" only when you want them to fight wars or to exploit their labor. The survivalist, ultra nationalist fascists feel a devout hatred for people they see as "foreigners," and they'll use any lie, seeing themselves as above reproach because of their duty to protect others from the people they hate. The "birthers" prove this point all the time, led by one Donald Trump, a survival of the fittest fascist if there ever was one. Roger Ailes has provided the drumbeat of propaganda for the increased fascism in our country, using the technique of  "keep repeating the same lies until enough people accept them as truth." No political party or philosophy has a monopoly on truth, but this is orchestrated by Ailes-led "Fox News," a propaganda organization devoid of any shame as Ailes promotes it as "fair and balanced." 

So, you don't want to be called a "fascist?" Don't act like one and don't support those who are. I suppose all of us at one time or another needs to look into a mirror and ask ourselves some tough questions. If you have been trending toward fascism, take a deep breath, look into the mirror and face reality, you'll feel a lot better than being on the side of evil. We're all part of selfishness, that's why we have to keep reminding ourselves about reaching out to those less fortunate. We have to keep fighting the fight against our own worst inclinations and fears. We aren't perfect individually and we won't be perfect as a nation, but we don't have to be fascists! 

* See "Note ** " in the previous part of this series:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/01/rolling-back-fascim-is-not-easy-part.html

WORD HISTORY:
Frock-This word's meaning has varied over time, but generally it came to mean "a long, loose, gown-like garment worn by people of the clergy," but also used as a term for "a hunting coat," and "a formal coat for men," which evolved into the "tails," for white tie, and as part of the term "frock coat," a coat previously used for formal daytime dress for men. The word is still around, but I suppose its most common usage in today's English is as part of "defrock;" that is, "to dismiss someone from the clergy." It "seems" to go back to Indo European "ruk/rugk," which meant "to spin (cloth/fabric)." Its Old Germanic offspring was "rukkaz," which meant "a jacket," but also could mean "a skirt" (Old English had "rocc," meaning "over garment," and German still has "Rock," which means both "jacket" and "skirt," and the other Germanic languages have forms, too). Latin borrowed a form of the word from Germanic, which was then inherited by its Old French offspring, or Old French borrowed a form from Frankish, a Germanic dialect/language, and then passed it to Latin. In any case, the Old French form became "froc," with the religious garment/gown meaning, which was then borrowed into English in the 1300s as "frok," before the modern version. The "f" beginning in the French word "could" be from the influence of Latin "floccus," which meant "a lock of wool," thus; if true, making "froc" something of a compound meaning "wool gown/garment." German borrowed the word from English in the 1700s as "Frack" (the "a" is pronounced as in "father," making it very similar to English "frock") and in modern German it means "a man's formal evening dress, tails."

Some Perspective On Political Donations

Word History updated very slightly December 20, 2017 

Recently I made note here of donations made to Republicans, namely to the Republican Governors Association, by Rupert Murdoch, owner of many things, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Within hours of that article, it was announced that MSNBC talk show host, Keith Olbermann, had been suspended without pay by the cable channel's parent company, NBC, for violating company policy about political donations. Olbermann recently made donations to three Democratic candidates. There was great uproar over this suspension, with even some conservative voices siding with Olbermann, and there were the inevitable charges that it was a violation of freedom of speech. For those unaware, Olbermann is politically a liberal/progressive, originally known for covering sports. NBC has since reinstated Olbermann.

The whole incident brought out that MSNBC host of "Morning Joe," Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, previously contributed to a Republican congressional candidate, and that Fox News talk show host, Sean Hannity, has also done so. From what I've read, Fox also has a similar policy to the NBC policy about political donations. Neither of these two has been suspended (at least not as I write this).

First my disclaimer...I'm not a lawyer, so this is purely my opinion based upon what I understand the Constitution to mean about "freedom of speech." The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The situation here did not involve Congress making a law to suspend Olbermann, Murdoch, or any one else. The television networks made their own policies. You may like or dislike those policies, but that's what this issue is about, not freedom of speech. If you own a business, you set the policies for your employees. How those policies are implemented, carried out, or acted upon can certainly come into legal question, however.

Now, whether Murdoch should have made his million dollar contribution to Republicans is not a legal matter, and I never indicated that it was in my comments. He has EVERY RIGHT to contribute to any candidate or cause. Whether this was a smart thing to do, is a matter for discussion, as Fox News has promoted itself to be "fair and balanced." It now seems that it is "fair and balanced" in choosing which Republican causes and candidates to support. Unlike Olbermann or Hannity, Murdoch represents his whole media empire, and it is my understanding that some Fox News "employees" were not thrilled to learn of Murdoch's political contributions. Let's be honest, we all know where Fox News stands, despite their "fair and balanced" protests to the contrary. Murdoch hired former GOP political operative Roger Ailes to head the station. In just this past election campaign, some Republican candidates made remarks about just appearing on Fox News for interviews; the implication being that they get softball questions. Further, one candidate literally said that they permitted her to make appeals for contributions. Murdoch's donation just confirmed the "fair and balanced" slogan as a total joke, something that was already happening anyway.

We also know where Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann stand, Joe Scarborough, while a Republican, is more temperate in most matters, but they do not own their respective outlets. They are all "talk show" hosts, or "commentators, " not really reporters, as such. They are on the air to make comments, even provocative comments, and that they do. From what I've read, and this is always subject to change, up until now, no reporters for any of the networks were found to have made political contributions. The main problem I see with Olbermann's political donations (which were not known to MSNBC at that time, or so I understand) was that he co-anchored the election night results, which does not give an impression of objectivity (to be clear, I did not watch MSNBC's election coverage, so I have no idea of how Olbermann or anyone else came across). It might have been better for all networks to leave "commentators" in that role during election coverage, and not make them anchors or co-anchors. BUT there's no law against them doing otherwise.

WORD HISTORY:
Donation-This noun goes back to the Indo European root "do," with a long "o," which meant, "to give." This produced "dono," which meant  "gift." The Latin offshoot was "donum," which likewise meant " gift." The Latin verb form seems to have been derived from "donum," and was "donare," meaning "to give as a gift." The noun form gradually became "donatus, and then "donation," which passed into Old French as "donacion." English acquired the word via French in the early 1400s, originally spelled "donacioun," before evolving to the modern spelling. "Supposedly" English derived its own verb form, "donate," from the noun in the early 1800s.

Of Crackpots and The Election

Let's see....we wanted Republicans, then we wanted Democrats, now we want Republicans again, "sort of." The GOP took control of the House of Representatives the other night, and made gains in the Senate. About the only positive things Democrats could point to was that they held onto the Senate, and that they prevented some real crackpots from entering that legislative body to join the likes of Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, who will sorely miss Sharron Angle* and Christine O'Donnell.** If DeMint ever gets his way, we'll nearly all undoubtedly be driving around in chariots and heading home to cook our rationed food on stones located just outside our tents. The privileged few, the business class, will still have their mansions and they'll dispatch their underlings to escort the rest of us to our tasks building real pyramids (not like the Wall Street types; "pyramid schemes"), on a daily basis, and I do mean DAILY, but there won't be any calendars, because I'm sure DeMint and his bunch don't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. If you have some medical condition that could possibly be helped by "science," forget it! No need for scientists, because thinking will be considered to be dangerous, not that they don't already believe that now. Everyone will be mandated to watch two hours of propaganda...I mean "news," on Fox News at local coliseums. Oh, and one more thing, there will be no need for real elections, since Fox will tell us every day how well off we are, and how the "natural state of affairs in a free market system" is for the very few to own society, while everyone else has been born to serve those few. Anyone who disagrees will have to stand before the one and only Supreme Court justice, Christine O'Donnell, who, with broom in hand, will ask no questions, but with a wiggle of her nose will dispatch that person to....ah.....POOF!

(Before I got "poofed," I did a Word History below the notes. Let's see...how do I get back now? I knew I should have watched "Bewitched" more often!)

* Sharron Angle, GOP senatorial candidate in Nevada, bluntly said that she would not talk to reporters, that she would only answer questions AFTER she was a senator (there's a vote for democracy), and that she would only appear on "Fox News," that bastion of "fair and balanced," whose owner contributed at least a cool million to the GOP in the recent elections. If ANY OTHER news organization, the so called "liberal media," had contributed to Democrats, the people at Fox would have landed in your laps after jumping through your television screens. And there would be no more Rush Limbaugh, because he would have most certainly had a stroke.

** Christine O'Donnell, the GOP senatorial candidate in Delaware, was the first woman since circa 1675 to declare "I'm not a witch." Unlike the women of times long passed, O'Donnell actually said it in a television ad, also saying, "I'm you. I''ll go to Washington and do what you would do." My question is, what would "you" do, since in a country like ours, we don't all hold the same opinions, so just what "you" is she talking about? Further, she said that she wanted to "follow the Constitution," but when asked what Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with, she couldn't do it.

WORD HISTORY:
Hex-Really two words in one, today. Presently, the ultimate origin of this word remains unknown. It traces back to West Germanic (English is a West Germanic language) and possibly to Old Germanic "hagatusjo(n)," having some meaning to do with "hedges," as the first part "haga," referred to "hedges, bushes," and indeed it is the ancestor of our modern word "hedge," and German "Hag" (not pronounced as our same word), which also means "hedge," and also is the "haw" part of "hawthorne," a tree that was seemingly common in pagan Germanic rituals. It is speculated by some linguists that the planting of these trees close together to form "hedgerows" to "fence in" old Germanic settlements may have given pagan beliefs the idea of "hedge riders;" that is, women with special powers who straddled "civilization" and the wild beyond, and that this gradually evolved into our more modern "witches riding brooms." Anyway, the West Germanic form gave Old English "haegtesse," meaning "witch," and this was shortened during the 1200s to just "hag," which also came to mean "ugly old woman," rather than just "witch." "Hex," the verb form ("to hex someone"), came to English in the 1800s from Pennsylvania German (commonly, but incorrectly, also known as "Pennsylvania Dutch"), a dialect (which used "Deitsch and "Duutsch" for their speech) brought to America by German immigrants, many of them from the Palatinate region of Germany. It is related to "hag." The Old Germanic form mentioned above gave Old High German "hagazuzza/hagazussa" meaning "witch," and later this became "hecse/hexse" in German, before becoming modern German "Hexe," meaning "a witch." The verb form became "hexen," in German," and the shortened form was passed onto English. "Supposedly," the noun form in English, "a hex," didn't develop until the early 1900s. By the way, the word "hex," used for a six-sided shape is not the same word, but rather simply a shortened form of "hexagon."

How We Get News/Information

It always seemed to me that the old time television news reporters had tremendous respect for newspaper reporters. Now, am I saying that television reporters don’t have the same respect for newspaper reporters today? Not really, as I’m sure many do, but there is an ongoing debate about how television news personnel, radio news and many bloggers read newspaper/magazine stories, simply refashion these stories in their own words, then broadcast or publish them without any compensation to the news organizations that gathered the original information, or even an acknowledgement of such. * From what I understand, one of the problems is, that so many television networks scaled back on their news operations, that now they are not the same “news gathering” organizations that they once were, so they often rely upon “the wire services” and published articles in newspapers and magazines. At one time, the television networks had news rooms all over the country, and indeed, even all over the world. Now, the networks often rely upon their affiliate local stations to provide reports from various parts of the country. That’s why you may see a local reporter from your area on the network or cable news at times. With communications what they are now, that makes sense, and it saves the networks money.

Two other entities made there own foray into providing information to the public via television; PBS (=Public Broadcasting System), once known more generically as “educational television,” began broadcast of the “McNeil/Lehrer Report,” “Washington-Week In Review,” and even business news programs. Then along came C-Span, which actually allowed Americans to watch their elected representatives at work in Congress; first in the House, then later also with a separate station for the Senate. C-Span also had interviews and other political information when Congress was not in session.

The early 1980s brought a major dose of change to the news business, as Ted Turner brought CNN (=Cable News Network) to cable television. As America gradually got wired into cable television, CNN grew more and more popular, and other cable stations with news type programs sprung up, too. More and more, easy news access was available to us 24 hours a day, and with that 24 hours of news came stations desperate to keep us tuned in with any and all sorts of….ahh…”news.” Not only that, but there came to be stations devoted to just business news, or to the weather, or to sports; all once considered to be parts of any single news program, just as they still are in most local news shows. There also came to be shows that seemed to be “news shows,” but which offered up really a good deal of opinion and entertainment. This eventually brought us to where we are now, shows that mix news, entertainment, and opinion, ** although I’m not sure these items are necessarily in that order. Sorting out what is news and what is opinion is not always easily accomplished. In the early 1980s, CNN introduced “Crossfire,” a political discussion show, featuring a conservative on one side of a particular issue, and a liberal on the other side. The two “combatants” were expected to have different viewpoints, and rarely did I see them in agreement. The question I always had was, do these folks really have this wide divide on EVERYTHING? I didn’t believe so, as I saw at least some of it as “forced.” More and more current events programs began to follow something of this basic format, with a segment devoted to discussion of varying points of view on any given number of subjects offered up by reporters and columnists. The public can now pick from any number of these “talk/discussion” shows on a variety of channels, but again, are these shows more “opinion/entertainment” than “information?” In my opinion, a definite “YES!”

Some of these type shows took on a more “ideological” point of view, and later, Rupert Murdock, the very conservative Australian owner of several news sources established “Fox News,” a cable station. Former Republican political strategist and media consultant, Roger Ailes, was put in charge of the station. The station’s tag line became, “Fair and balanced,” but of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While the station had an obvious tilt toward conservative views, it wasn’t outrageous, and I often watched certain shows on “Fox News.” Hey, you don’t have to agree with them. Don’t like it, don’t watch it, but getting a variety of opinions doesn’t scare me. In fact, I would argue that we have become so “politically and ideologically” specialized in how we get our information, that this is at least partially why the country is so polarized. Too many Americans watch, listen, or read only the things that confirm their own basic beliefs about a subject, not things that make them THINK or QUESTION those beliefs. More recently, in my opinion, “Fox” has had a tendency to go over the top on some issues, and “PERHAPS” has even been involved in helping to organize recent protests.*** Do they have that right? Certainly, but “fair and balanced?” They can’t have it both ways. Just my opinion, but the station seems to have also given a much more substantial voice to very far rightwing views.

I’d guess back in the earlier 1970s, Phil Donahue had a show that presented all sorts of talk/interviews. Often, but not always, his shows were about politics. Phil Donahue falls on the left of the political spectrum, and some would say, far left. I watched his shows, too, but I’ve got to admit, especially by the early to mid 1980s, he started airing some strange stuff, not only political in nature, and some folks with some way out views, both rightwing and leftwing. This is America, and these folks are entitled to their opinions, but to give them a public forum is not my idea of being a responsible program. (I can hear the civil libertarians howling!) If I remember right, old Phil, who is from here in Cleveland, would more or less say that he felt Americans needed to know about these various fringe groups, but the problem is, in my opinion, who out there in television land is watching with their own unstable minds? ****After a while, I lost interest in his show, mainly because of this type of nonsense. My point is, both left and right have their extremes.

To be continued… (A word history is below the notes)

* The print media also complain, with good reason, in my opinion, that bloggers could at least offer up a link to the newspaper or magazine website, or to the actual article. Advertising rates for websites are set by how many visits are made to that site. If you have a business of your own, and you want to advertise online, you would want to know how many people actually go to a particular media website, on average, in any given period of time, and therefore, how many people might see your ad. When people just essentially copy a story or column, and then publish it on their own, without a link to where they got the story, that site gets zilch for their efforts. If it is a news story, the company had to pay a reporter or reporters and assistants to get the detail of that particular story.

** News programs always had some small element of entertainment to them, just as I mentioned that the “Huntley/Brinkley Report” often ended with a humorous story, but these were separate stories, and easily understood as “entertainment” by members of the public, unless of course, you were one of those folks listening to the news and trying to learn to play bridge from the newspaper at the same time.

*** I saw a clip of a recent protest rally, where “supposedly,” and I want to emphasize that, a woman involved with Fox News was egging the crowd on. It “seems” that when she realized that someone was filming her actions, she hurriedly ducked out of the picture.

**** I know that “Hitler analogies" get overused, but I’ll dare to be trite. In 1923, Hitler was the leader of a two bit political movement that was little known outside of the German state of Bavaria (southern Germany). His failed attempt to seize the Bavarian state government ended up paying him big benefits. He was put on trial, where his extreme nationalist views were given a public forum, and these views found an audience of anxious Germans, even supposedly with the presiding judge, who gave Hitler a light sentence. The future dictator spent only about a year in prison, and a rather comfy prison at that. So comfy that he actually wrote most of his famous book, “Mein Kampf” while in that prison. He was even allowed to “dictate” (no pun intended!) the book to associates who were permitted into him. Don’t forget, he tried to OVERTHROW the state government, by force!!!

WORD HISTORY:
Thrive-This word came to English from Old Norse (a North Germanic language) "thrifask" during the 13th Century. The Old Norse meaning was "to grasp to oneself;" thus, came the meaning "to prosper." The Norse word seems to have gone back to "thrifa," which meant "to grasp, clutch or seize." Modern North Germanic languages have forms of the word: Swedish has "trivas," and Danish has "trives;" both meaning "to thrive, to flourish." Unfortunately, all sources I checked cannot carry the word back further in history, so where North Germanic got it, is still unknown.