Careful of Political Ads And The Dodge Game

Just a thought about political ads from candidates or supporters from both parties where the candidate says, "I'm for," or "I'm against," and then some generalized statement that ends with "for more information go to www.," and then some website address. If you have a plan or program, tell us what it is in your ad, don't refer us to a website most people will never visit. These things make me suspicious right away. Maybe they should say, for more info, go to my site: "I Don't Want You Tell You What The Hell I believe." Remember folks, just because we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press doesn't mean you're going to have an informed public. This is a battle for information. Politicians by their very nature try to keep from saying in any detail what they intend to do if elected. They may even have to be pressed for generalities. I realize they're afraid they will alienate elements of the electorate, but we need to know more than "Romney will stand up to China." What the hell does that mean? Or, "I know how jobs are created." What the hell does that mean? Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and the host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, was recently talking about how Romney just won't answer questions, and remember, Joe is a REPUBLICAN! Now, in fairness, Romney may give us more info as time passes, and it is the duty, in my opinion, of the American press to get answers from him. Our system isn't perfect, but there has to be more info than "I know how jobs are created."

In this coming election, Romney has more on him to tell us what he believes and what he wants to do, because, "essentially," we know what Obama believes and what his programs have been. That's just true of incumbents for any office; they've been there, so we know "most" things about them. Further, incumbents can sort of hide behind "I can't discuss sensitive foreign policy details," and that may or may not be true, but it is what it is, and the public is sort of in a "Catch 22;" if we get details on a sensitive issue, it could lead to a foreign policy problem, but if we don't have information, we can't decide if the issue is really sensitive or not. The President also has to be pressed on what he wants to do in a second term. It isn't enough to say "I want to be your President again."

WORD HISTORY:
Reek-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain and it seems to only appear in Germanic, although Lithuanian has a similar word, but it could well have been borrowed from Germanic (Lithuanian bordered on Germanic dialects/languages for centuries). Old Germanic had "reukanan," which meant "give off smoke." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "reocan," with the same meaning. This later became "reken," before the modern version. The notion of "smoke" giving off an odor to clothing, hair, etc. gave the word a secondary meaning of "smell badly," the meaning that has persisted into modern times in English and some other Germanic languages. There was once also a noun form in English "riec" (Old English) and later "rek," before "reek," but it is now archaic, although such forms in other Germanic languages are still much in use: German has the noun "Rauch," which means "smoke," and the noun "Rauchen," which means "smoking,"^ the verb "rauchen," meaning "to smoke," but also "riechen," which means "to smell (in the sense 'use your nose,' not the sense 'smell badly'),"^^ and the noun "Geruch," meaning "a smell, a scent, an odor;" Low German has the noun "Rook" ("smoke), as does Dutch ("rook"), but Dutch also has "reuk," ("scent, odor"), and  the verb "roken" ("to smoke"), as well as "ruiken" ('to smell," in the sense "with your nose," but also "smell badly/reek"); West Frisian has "reek" ("smoke") and the verb "rikje" ("to smoke"), as well as "rûke" ("to smell," although I'm not sure how much this is used anymore); Danish has "røg"  ("smoke") and the verb "ryge" ("to smoke"); Norwegian has "røyk" ("smoke") and "røyke" ("to smoke"); Swedish has "rök"  ("smoke") and the verb "ryka"  ("to smoke"); and Icelandic has "reykur" ("smoke") and the verb "rjúka" ("to smoke").

^ You've perhaps seen "Rauchen Verboten" signs in movies or pictures set in Germany. It means "No Smoking," literally "Smoking Forbidden" (Verboten=forbidden and again shows the close relationship between the two languages).
 
^^ In German (and others, see more above) the notion of smoke making things smell gave rise to the verb meaning "to use your nose to detect odors, scents;" that is, "how an odor is detected," rather than the result of "the odor given off," as in English "reek."

Pat Buchanan & MSNBC

Leave it to Randy to defend Pat Buchanan, someone I have little in common with politically. I have to say, I have NOT read his latest book, "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" I have read some reviews of the book. Buchanan was with MSNBC/NBC as a political commentator for about a decade, offering various views, some considered to be rightwing (I concur), on all sorts of political and international events. For the last few years he was more associated with MSNBC's "Morning Joe," an early morning talk/discussion show on the cable channel, where he became a regular.

Just briefly, Buchanan worked for President Richard Nixon and later for President Ronald Reagan. He was on the original "Crossfire" show on CNN in the early 1980s (I watched it regularly), just before he went to work in the Reagan White House. He ran against fellow Republican and incumbent President, George Bush (Sr.) in 1992, and caused the President numerous headaches during the primary campaign, and later at the Republican Convention. He also ran in 1996, emphasizing the loss of American jobs due to poorly negotiated trade deals, a position which seemed to garner him some Democratic votes. He criticized both major political parties on this and other issues, often "social issues," like abortion, gay rights, and immigration policy, and he proudly proclaimed his staunch Catholicism and support of Church dogma. As I recall (and I may need to be corrected on this), polls showed much of Buchanan's support from white men, some even being dubbed "angry white men." When Republican President George W. Bush proposed immigration changes that would have permitted eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who went through a process taking several years, Buchanan dubbed it "amnesty," and he and his supporters (and others) so battered the proposal, it went nowhere. Highly polarizing, Buchanan has been a red flag to Blacks, Latinos, Jews, gays, and many women, and that doesn't count the many white men who were also turned off by his heated rhetoric.

Last October Buchanan's book was released and MSNBC suspended Buchanan as some of the topics in the book sparked heated retorts from Jews and other minorities, including gays, as Buchanan charged that America is in decline because of minorities, and the decline in percentage of the population of white people of European heritage, as well as the decline of "European Christianity." Interestingly he laments that "Mexico is moving north," but Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic, the religion brought there by European Spaniards. Hm, I must have missed something. Anyway, a little over a month ago, MSNBC terminated its relationship with the outspoken Buchanan. "Morning Joe" hosts Joe Scarborough (a former Republcian congressman) and Mika Brzezinski (daughter of foreign policy analyst and author Zbigniew Brzezinski) both offered personal support for Buchanan, while noting the differences they had with many of his opinions, especially those opinions offered up in this book. They countered that a debate of Buchanan's ideas is the best way to expose his fallacies (this is not a quote, but my take on their remarks). I totally agree. I'm not too keen on firing commentators, columnists, etc over their views. I'm not afraid of views contrary to my own, rather I like the debate over such things. Now, some might well argue that Buchanan's views fire up some of like mind, including racists and bigots, but they will always find things to be fired up about, and making him something of a martyr does the same thing, but without input from those with other viewpoints. That is far more dangerous, in my opinion.

WORD HISTORY:
Woman-This word is really a compound, which was then contracted into the modern form. It is an English creation and is thus peculiar to English among the Germanic languages. In Old English (Anglo-Saxon), the common word for a female human was "wif," which is obviously still with us in the modern form "wife" (this will be the next "Word History"). English put together "wif" and "mann" ("man" in the sense of "human being") as "wifmann" for a "female human." Pronunciation variations as the "f" sound died out later made this "wimman" (also spelled "wiman") and "wumman," before the modern version. The process whereby "woman" replaced "wife" for a "female human being" took a few centuries, but since "wife" came to by applied more and more to "a married female, a female spouse," "woman" finally triumphed, as many men already know.

A Diversionary Crisis, Part Two

I remember Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," a former Republican congressman, saying that during George W. Bush's term in office, Republicans "spent money like drunken sailors." I'm sure he took some heat for that comment from both Republicans and drunken sailors. I like Joe Scarborough, and while I don't always agree with him, I respect him. Unlike some Republicans, he doesn't suffer from the "George W. who?" question, as some GOP members do, in an effort to distance themselves from the Bush presidency, and from the responsibility for some, not all, of the problems we are now facing. Democrats also have their fingers in part of the run up to the collapse in 2008, just not quite as much.

Shortly after Barack Obama took office, Republican members of Congress, much diminished in numbers by the results of the previous two elections, were able, with the help of President Obama, to turn one of their negatives, "debt," into one of their selling points. The President's push for health care, while admirable, but also inadequate in several ways, gave Republicans a chance for a comeback,** and they took the ball and ran with it. The President's poll numbers tumbled; likewise for Democrats in Congress. The GOP began to emphasize "debt," and while the Congressional Budget Office* said the new health care law would not add debt, but even possibly reduce government debt, the public remained skeptical. After being pilloried for "spending like drunken sailors," Republicans decided to regain the issue of fighting government debt. The "Tea Party" movement, largely centered in the GOP, held rallies around the country with supporters waving tea bags and carrying signs denouncing Obama and Democrats as spendthrifts, as well as some...ah... other names. The Republicans made headway in turning the debt issue back in their favor, and some Americans seemed to suffer from collective amnesia about the "Republicans spending like drunken sailors." Incredibly the Republicans were able to sort of hit the "reset" button, and the tremendous government debt was laid at the feet of President Obama, in spite of the previous eight years of Republican rule, with two wars unpaid for, homeland security unpaid for, tax cuts (largely favoring the very rich) unpaid for, and a Medicare prescription drug benefit unpaid for. Lost in all of this, both Obama's health care reform and the GOP's debt targeting, was the economy and JOBS! I don't know of a reputable economist who doesn't essentially say, "You can't cut the debt big time, until people have jobs and the economy is back on firmer footing." With unemployment hovering around 9% for quite some time, jobless people collect benefits, and they are not paying taxes. It's a double whammy!

* Interestingly, one of the things Republicans "claimed" they didn't like in the Democrats' health care reform, the insurance exchange, they now champion in Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal. On the other hand, Democrats liked the idea when they proposed it, but now scoff at Ryan's use of it. You don't think.....nah....politics has something to do with this, do you? Nah, couldn't be.

** The Congressional Budget Office, also known by its initials "CBO," is a non-partisan office that crunches and analyses numbers for Congress.

WORD HISTORY:
Control-This is another compound word, so I will deal each part separately. "Cont" traces back to Indo European "kom/ghem," which had the idea of "beside, near, together." This then gave Indo European "kom-tr(a)," with the notion of "together" being expanded to mean, "opposite;" that is, if you and I are standing together, we are opposite of one another. This gave Latin "contra," but now more with the meaning "opposite one another, as in opponents; against, a counter to something else," as in, "The defense "countered" the other team's quarterback by rushing him." The "rol" part traces back to Indo European "ret(h)," which meant "run, roll." A variant form, "rot-a," with a long "o" sound, gave Latin "rota," with the meaning "wheel." This then gave Latin "rotula" and then "rotulus," meaning "small wheel." "Contra" and "rotulus" were then combined into "contrarotulus," which was a small wheel used to check one account against another in times long ago, as it had duplicate account information on it to "counter, check, verify" the other set of information by simply rotating the wheel (yes, "rotate" is from "rota"), rather than having to look back and forth over other methods of record keeping, like parchment. Old French inherited a form of the word from Latin as "contrerole." The Norman dialect of French took the term as "contreroller" to England where it was borrowed into English in the late 1200s or early 1300s as "conterolle," and a verb form "controllen," meaning "to validate, to verify, to check for authenticity, to regulate." The development of the further meaning "have power over" is easy to understand. German too borrowed the word, as "kontrollieren," with essentially the same meaning, but perhaps with more emphasis on the "to check, to evaluate," meaning. German also has a form of "rota," which is "Rad," which means "wheel," and some sources say it came from a Germanic source tracing back to Indo European, others say it was borrowed form Latin, and still others leave the ultimate origin as unknown. I'm inclined to believe German got the word from Latin, as it is not common in the other Germanic languages, including English, even more especially, Old English, a time when the vocabularies of the various Germanic dialects were much closer.

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.

Paying The Piper-Part 8/2-An Unpleasant Ticket To The Past

A couple of weeks ago on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," host, former conservative Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, stated that the "free trade" policy that has shipped so many jobs overseas, along with investment, has become difficult to change because it has become "a religion."* I think Joe has hit the nail on the head. It is much the same with the "free market" ideology, and I believe you can more or less lump the two together; "free trade/free markets." The interesting thing is, the "super patriots" of the American Right talked about no unilateral disarmament in our relationship with the former Soviet Union. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but many of these same people, or their more recent clones, are always touting "free trade" that is often unilateral. We needn't dig up Einstein to ask him why so many American jobs have gone overseas. Forget about patriotism, American business people will go to where one of their highest expenses, labor, is cheapest. Costs are always important. If you had a lemonade stand when you were a kid, you probably didn't buy lemons at the most expensive place in the neighborhood. Americans basically understand all of this; it is a part of our society. The American labor movement understands it, too. What concerns many in American labor is that the basic trade system with many countries is not fair to start with. Workers in many of the "new" economies of the world make a fraction of what many American workers make, or should I say, what many American workers MADE. Be careful of the code phrase oft stated by executives, "Our production costs are too high." With the system that is now in place, essentially what America's powerful interests are saying with this phrase is, "American workers make too much!" Of course, they don't say that executives or wealthy investors make too much, although the incomes of the wealthiest Americans are really the only incomes that have grown much in the last thirty years, under the prevailing economic philosophy of modern American conservatism (if it can be called "conservatism"). Pat Buchanan, a frequent participant on "Morning Joe," and noted conservative commentator, also recently stated how all of this "free trade" policy has damaged the country. Okay Pat, then why are you pushing for more conservative Republican victories? It's like saying, "My party is destroying the American economy. Let's elect more people from my party!"** You can't have this both ways, unless you're willing to pay the price; the ultimate demise of the country. Until this mentality changes, woe to America.

(A Word History is below the notes)

* I really like Joe Scarborough. I don't always agree with him; in fact, at times, I very much disagree with him, but he is one conservative who seems to have learned some lessons from the economic mistakes of the last few decades, and Joe is willing to say so. This seems to run contrary to many other conservatives who act as if they did absolutely NOTHING WRONG to bring on the current economic problems of the country, and in fact, seem to advocate their policies even more strongly. When the Bush Administration proposed the "bank bailout" bill in September of 2008, many conservative lawmakers said that banks that made bad decisions should just be allowed to fail. That all sounds good until you see what happened when just one bank failed, Lehman Brothers. The whole WORLD financial structure shook, with world stock markets tumbling by huge amounts. Where would we be now if virtually ALL banks had been left to fail? This is the very same philosophy that says, "Look, if you're sick and you don't have insurance, the HELL WITH YOU! I've got mine!" Don't be confused by any of this, folks! If this kind of thinking had prevailed throughout history, humans would still live in trees. "Hey you birds! What ya doin' buildin' that nest in my tree?"

** I don't agree much with Pat Buchanan, but when he's right on policy, he's right. In fairness to his position, he did try to get Republicans to abandon or modify these trade policies, especially in his presidential run in the primaries of 1996. He was HIGHLY CRITICAL of the Republican position. He seemed to have drawn a lot of former Ross Perot supporters to his banner, but the problem has been, after Buchanan's run, who did these types, including Buchanan, eventually vote for? More Republicans with the same ideology they claimed to be against.

WORD HISTORY:
Morel-The ultimate origin of this word for a type of mushroom is uncertain. One source notes that it goes back to Indo European "mork," which meant "root, tuber," but I can't find "mork" in any Indo European words. So how Germanic got the word, I can't say, although the one source could be correct. Old Proto Germanic had "murhon," which indeed meant "edible root." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "more" (the ending "e" was pronounced back then as "eh/ah"), which meant "carrot," which included parsnips, back then. It seems the Germanic dialects of those times did not distinguish between carrots and parsnips, because the "orange" carrot either hadn't yet been cultivated, or was unavailable to our ancestors at that time. "More" (then also spelled "moore") remained the English word for "carrot" until the 1500s! Gradually English usage of the borrowed word "carrot" developed, replacing the native word. I'll probably get around to covering "carrot's" history in the near future. The Old Germanic word also gave Frankish, another Germanic dialect, the form "morhila," which meant "mushroom" in that dialect. This then was absorbed into French, a Latin-based language, but with a good number of Germanic words, as "morille." The French term was borrowed into English in the 1670s as "morel." The Germanic word also gave Old High German "morhilo," which has since become modern German "Morchel," which is their term for the type of mushroom. The same Old Germanic word that gave Old English "more," also gave German "Möhre," still one of their words for "carrot" (they also use "Karotte," which they too borrowed).

Paying The Piper-Part Six-Incomes Fall, Poverty Rises

Yesterday, the Census Bureau released figures showing the nation's poverty rate climbed to 14.3% (figures go through 2009), the highest since 1994. There are now 43.6 million Americans living poverty, the most since the 1960s. The number of people without health insurance also increased, presumably as businesses tried to cut costs during the economic downturn, and the new health care law doesn't take full effect until 2014, if it survives Republican attempts to repeal or kill it by refusing to fund certain parts of it.*

While I don't believe George W. Bush is a bad person, his economic policies, and those policies that have been put into place in the last three decades have taken a TERRIBLE toll on many Americans. Newly released figures show that the median income for Americans fell nearly 5% between 2000 and 2009.** Of course incomes for the top 20% rose, and how much do you want to bet that the increases at the very top 1 to 2% were higher than most?***

I've noted here before that "Morning Joe," on cable channel MSNBC, is one of my favorite shows. Today, host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, and none other than conservative Republican commentator Pat Buchanan talked about these very figures I've mentioned above. Buchanan said that he has had "big differences with his party" over many of the economic policies of the last few decades, most put into place by Republicans, although at times with help from some Democrats. Buchanan threw some figures out, and I have no idea how accurate these figures are, but he said that during Bush's eight years in office, more than 50,000 manufacturing plants closed in America! As a result, he stated that 6 million manufacturing jobs ("the highest income jobs for working class Americans," he added) disappeared, with many of these jobs going to China. Scarborough mentioned "three decades of American decline." Remember, these were two Republicans talking about this, not two Democrats.

If you're a Republican, God bless ya! We need differing points of view, as neither political party has a monopoly on good ideas, and certainly neither has a monopoly on virtue. I just hope you'll go look into that mirror and say to yourself, "I think we've got a problem here." That's a start! Don't be in denial! What is terribly troubling to me now is to hear Republican officeholders acting as if they had nothing to do with creating the economic situation this country is in. It's as if they learned nothing! That's a recipe for more decline. (A Word History is below the notes)

Related previous article:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/06/you-wont-need-time-machine.html

* The health care bill (now law) was not great, but it was a start. A number of Republican members of Congress and some Republican candidates are indicating they will try to repeal or "de-fund" the health care law, if Republicans take over Congress in the November elections. The Republican senatorial candidate in Alaska (Joe Miller) has noted that with a Democratic president, no repeal will be possible, as the president will veto any such legislation, but Miller advises that he will aim to "de-fund" the law, thus effectively killing it.

** See the Wall Street Journal for today, the front page article, "Lost Decade for American Income," by Conor Dougherty and Sara Murray.

*** I'm not against people making money, even lots of money, but in my lifetime I've found that most Americans are pretty sensible. We want businesses to make money, we understand it, we get it! There will always be those who resent someone who made a dime off of them, but they are in the distinct minority, probably like 2%. The other side of the coin is, however, Americans also know when they see excess, and we've seen excess. There has been a tremendous transfer of wealth to the upper incomes, and they were already, well, the upper incomes.

WORD HISTORY:
Poverty-This word goes back to the Indo European root "pau," which meant "little, few," and which then spawned the Latin offshoot "paupertas." (Latin is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree.) Old French, a Latin-based language, continued with "poverte," and English then acquired the word from French in the late 1100s. Initially it was spelled as the French word, "poverte," but later took on the modern spelling. It is closely related to both "poor" and "pauper." In Old English we used a form of the base "earm" to relate words connected to poor and poverty, and in our close relative German, they still have "arm"(not the same as the body part, which is spelled the same in German), which is obviously close to our old word.

"Morning Joe" and Me

Weekdays, I frequently watch a part of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. It has had some of the best discussions I've seen on television about many of the issues confronting the nation. The show appeared a couple of years ago as a replacement for the "Imus Show," which was televised on MSNBC. It is hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and Mika Brezinski, the daughter of former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski. There are a variety of regularly appearing participants, like Pat Buchanan and columnist Mike Barnicle, among others, who sit in with Joe and Mika, commenting on some current events and asking questions of guests. Some very pointed questions are often asked of the various guests making appearances on the show, and to be quite honest, at times, things can get a bit chaotic. Unfortunately too, the group can get off topic, at times, not always, leaving a scheduled guest or two with little time to express their views or offer their expertise on what was supposed to be the matter at hand. Frequently these guests are asked if they can stay longer, or return to the show in the future. I'm not particularly fond of the show's tendency to have some participants in New York, and others in Washington. This adds to the "chaos" at times, as participants from both locations begin "talking over" each other.

What I really like are the tough questions that are asked. We NEED this!!! The show is not tilted toward any particular ideology or political party, although Scarborough is a Republican and is not the least bit shy in reminding the audience of his affiliation. He also claims to be a "conservative," although during the early part of the economic meltdown, I heard him "seemingly" side with Pat Buchanan, who has a kind of "economic populist" streak in him. Joe's biggest problem is his "inclination" to interrupt others and sort of monopolize the conversation, at times; but hey, he's a lawyer, what do you expect? He has some ideas I tend to agree with, and some I tend to be a bit skeptical of, but he's a thoughtful guy and, as I mentioned, he asks some tough questions. I just wish he'd asked some of those tough questions when he was in Congress in the 1990s. In fairness to him, he admits that there were mistakes made about economic matters, and I'm not sure he'll admit it, but while he insists he's a supporter of "free market capitalism," I have heard him utter some support for that word so brought into disrepute by "conservatives" in the last several decades...."regulation." Also, one morning, about two months ago, he certainly sided with Pat Buchanan when Pat mentioned "economic nationalism," regarding the auto industry. Joe also tries to boil down the positions of various politicians of both parties. His "what this really means" offerings are usually none too flattering. I like that, even though I don't always agree with his assessment,*** as I often try to do the same thing here, like when I say, "Is America going to provide national care to all citizens, or are we going to say, "The hell with 'em...let 'em suffer or die?" Bottom line folks; that's what it means!

As to Buchanan, I don't often find myself in agreement with him on social issues, but on many economic matters, he's closer to what I believe, although I think he might be a bit too tight-fisted over trade. Further, Buchanan opposed the Iraq invasion, and many of his concerns turned out to be valid. While he's been known for some maverick tendencies, it still could not have been easy for him to oppose a Republican administration on such a crucial matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I also seem to detect a bit of weakening on some of his positions on social issues. Is it that he sees things differently now that he's a bit older, or is it that he's not a candidate for president, and therefore doesn't need to pander to parts of the electorate for votes? Maybe a bit of both? Then too, Pat was a regular on CNN's "Crossfire" at various times during the show's life, and he was expected to take strong conservative views. Maybe some of this was just for the show, and now that he's not expected to always offer a hard line point of view, he doesn't?

As to Mika, I like her very much, and she seems to enjoy the spirited and tough discussions, but she likes the discussions to be civil. She also seems a bit idealistic, but then again, I suppose it could be argued that some of Joe and Pat's conservative views are idealistic, too. Come to think of it, I suppose all of our views, if carried to their apex, could be considered idealistic. I'd certainly argue that "Reaganism" went too far after Reagan, although I wonder if he had not developed Alzheimer's, would he have supported the continued pushing of an agenda that dismantled so many regulations of business? That pushed the notion of "the government is the enemy?" That let income disparity grow to 1920s levels? Reagan talked tax cuts, but he raised taxes when he thought it necessary. He talked about "gun owners' rights," but he supported the "Brady Bill" after he left office, if I remember right. To me, the smart politician knows when to STOP pushing an ideological agenda. On the old television show "Fantasy Island," guests to the island got to live out THEIR idealisms, usually with bad results for them.

Anyway, Mika preaches against certain foods, especially sweet and fatty fare. Then, I believe it was Mike Barnicle, IF I remember correctly, who asked one guest, regarding possible health care legislation, that if America gets national health care, do each of us then have a "responsibility" to take better care of ourselves. Ah, we're back to the "idealism," which seems a bit like "nannyism," to me. What will we have... the "Nutrition and Exercise Police?" And speaking of Mike Barnicle, I like him a lot too, but at times, he seems a bit intimidated by Joe's strongly enunciated conservative viewpoint on certain issues. I would have liked to have seen him challenge Joe on some things, mainly economic, but then too, maybe he's lying back because its Joe's show?

Then there's Willy Geist, a regular who provides some comic relief for the show. Willy was once a regular on Tucker Carlson's show. Carlson is a kind of libertarian/conservative commentator, who has been on both MSNBC and CNN, and he makes occasional appearances on "Morning Joe."

If you like good political discussions, I highly recommend "Morning Joe." You can always record the show, if it is too early for you. (A "word history" is below)


***Sometimes I'm about to leap off the couch over his comments!

Word History:
Skirmish-I can't find the Indo European root for this word, at present, but "skirmish" goes back to Germanic, and Frankish, a Germanic dialect, gave a form of their word "skirmjan" to French as "eskermiss,"^^^ which itself was the present stem form of "eskermir," meaning "to fence, fight with a sword." So the French notion may have been "defend yourself with a sword." The Germanic meaning had been "to defend, protect," and indeed modern German has "Regenschirm," which means "umbrella;" that is, a cover/defense against rain, and a verb, "schirmen," which means "to protect, to cover." Whether Old English had a form of this Germanic word that may have died out prior to acquiring it from French, I don't know, but Old High German had "skirmen." English acquired "skirmish" during the 1300s from French.

^^^A couple of sources say that Italian got the word from Germanic and passed it on to French.