Iraq and Humpty Dumpty

Humpty Dumpty comes from an English rhyme dating from at least the late 1700s. As I'm sure most people know, Humpty Dumpty was an egg sitting on a wall, and an egg is held together by a shell. A shell is generally fragile, and when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and broke, he could not be put back together again.

The area that "generally" is modern Iraq, Mesopotamia, has a prominent place in the story of mankind. Just briefly and superficially, modern Iraq had been part of the pre World War One "Ottoman Empire" of the Turks. The British fought the Turks there during World War One, when the Turks were allied with the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The victorious British controlled the area after the war until the early 1930s, when they granted independence to Iraq, which became a kingdom; that is, ruled by a king, and the monarchy was Sunni Muslim. A revolution in the late 1950s ended the monarchy and replaced it with several military leaders over the next few years. Another revolution in the late 1960s brought the Ba'ath Party to power, which eventually brought military leader Saddam Hussein to rule Iraq. As you can see, Iraq has not been an easy country to govern.

Iraq is an overwhelmingly Muslim country, with a relatively small Christian segment, but its Muslim population is divided between a Shia sect majority and a Sunni sect minority. Ethnically, Iraqis are heavily Arabic,* but with a regional Kurdish population in the majority in the far northern area of the country.**

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, and although he was a secular leader, religious division in Iraq was important, as was ethnic background, especially for the Kurdish population. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist, invaded neighboring Iran (an overwhelmingly Shia Muslim majority country), invaded and occupied neighboring Kuwait, and ruthlessly suppressed Kurdish attempts at independence. Saddam's occupation of Kuwait in 1990 brought large scale military action against his forces by an American led coalition, which included other Arab and Muslim nations. After his defeat and a ceasefire, there were uprisings in Kurdish and Shia areas of the country, but Hussein responded with military actions to successfully put down the insurrections and keep himself in power, although through the United Nations, "no fly zones" were set up, which prohibited Iraqi aircraft to fly in certain parts of the country, thus limiting attacks on certain groups. The ceasefire agreement ending the war imposed tough trade sanctions on Iraq and called for Iraq to destroy all chemical weapons and to abandon any attempt to develop nuclear weapons. U.N. inspectors were to verify compliance with the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and production facilities, as well as verify that there was no development of nuclear weapons. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minster Tony Blair launched air and missile strikes in the late 1990s on a number of targets in Iraq, as Saddam interfered with weapons' inspectors, accusing some inspectors of being spies for the U.S.  

Following the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the U.S. and its allies commenced military operations in Afghanistan to chase the ruling Taliban from power, along with Al Qaeda operatives and trainees, who had been given sanctuary there by the Taliban. President George W. Bush and members of his administration, most notably, Vice President Dick Cheney, then tied Saddam Hussein to the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11.*** With Saddam's interference with weapons' inspectors, the fear developed in the Bush administration and elsewhere, that Hussein was hiding various weapons and that he would get biological, chemical, and perhaps some type of nuclear weapon, all of these collectively known as "weapons of mass destruction, or 'WMD,' " into the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists. The administration began a concerted effort to present a case for war against Iraq to the American, and even the world, public. The 9/11 attacks had shaken not only the United States, but much of the world, as the attacks demonstrated the commitment of religious fanatics to wage war on those, even other Muslims, who did not share in their beliefs. This mindset led many Americans and others to assume the worst from the "evidence" provided by the Bush administration.**** Vice President Cheney assured Americans that invading forces would be greeted as liberators. (See NBC's "Meet The Press" for March 16, 2003)

The invasion of Iraq quickly toppled Saddam Hussein, who was found months later hiding in a hole outside his hometown of Tikrit. It didn't take long for the jubilation over Saddam's fall to turn to anger and despair, as the war ravaged country saw the emergence of armed religious factions and Al Qaeda groups fighting not only the occupying forces, but each other, creating a civil war type situation, with occupying forces and humanitarian personnel caught in the middle. Bombings and kidnappings became common, with many a terrible death attributed to both. So now there was an Iraq of Sunnis, an Iraq of Shia, and a northern region of Iraq of Kurds. All of this combined with an element of a nation unaccustomed to any form of democracy. Gradually "a general sense of order" came to be restored by the occupying forces, which also took to providing training for Iraqi police and military units, but periodic attacks on installations, occupying troops and Iraqi police and military units continued. A national election was held and a new Iraqi government, led by Shia Muslim Nouri al Maliki, as prime minister, was installed. With Iraq a majority Shia country, Sunnis feared exclusion in governing the country. The Kurds successfully secured regional self government, while remaining as a part of Iraq.***** With Americans growing increasingly disenchanted with American involvement (and mounting casualties) in Iraq, and with many Iraqis wanting to take full control of their country, President George W. Bush negotiated an agreement to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2011, which indeed took place.

Prime Minister Al Maliki has maintained close relations with neighboring Shia majority Iran, and his relations with other Middle Eastern nations is more sketchy, especially with those, like Saudi Arabia, which have a Sunni majority. Since the withdrawal of occupying forces, attacks on public places and on military and police installations have continued, seemingly more by some radical and militant Sunnis.****** More recently, "ISIS" ("Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"), a highly radical Sunni militia group and offshoot of Al Qaeda, has been advancing deep into Iraq from Syria, threatening the capital of Baghdad. This has brought a call to arms by Shia religious and public leaders to defend the city and to defeat ISIS, which, if reports are correct, and they certainly seem to be, has massacred untold numbers of Iraqis in the areas they have captured. In the north, the independent minded Kurds have a substantial army of their own to guard their territory, and their forces have generally been deemed to be much better than many of the Iraqi forces that have thus far faced ISIS. Many Iraqi units collapsed with barely a fight, and reports indicate that many men discarded their uniforms and threw away their weapons. The U.S. is in the process of sending about 300 "advisers" to Iraq to provide further training and such to Iraqis. To me, the idea that 300 men with such a task will have a major impact is ridiculous. "My guess" is, the men will act as "spotters" to call in American airstrikes (or missile strikes), if the President decides to so act.

Recent polls show that Americans now think the invasion of Iraq was not worth the cost. The problem is, the invasion, which found no weapons of mass destruction, may have toppled Saddam Hussein, but it also toppled the Humpty Dumpty of Iraq from his wall, and while the rhyme dates from the 1700s, no one has yet figured out how to put Humpty back together again. The situation is terrible, with few, if any, good options, but the sending of any major U.S. forces has so far been ruled out by the President and it seems even some typically bellicose members of Congress are reluctant to call for armed intervention, but we'll see, since if some had their way, the U.S. would have troops stationed in far more places around the world than we already do.

* The Arabic language is part of the Semitic family of languages, which includes Hebrew, among others.

** The Kurds are closely related to the Persians, and the Kurdish language (and its dialects) is Indo European, making it related to English, but further down the family tree.

*** For a little more on the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, see my article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_25.html

**** To be clear here, not all Americans were convinced by the administration provided "evidence," nor were the leaders of many other nations, as the military coalition assembled by George W. Bush was nowhere near the size of that put together by his father in 1990. "Generally," polls showed around 60% of Americans supported a war against Iraq with U.N.approval, but slightly less than 50% supported such a war without U.N. approval. (See prewar polls by Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/USA Today)

***** In theory, the Kurds had been granted a form of regional self rule by Saddam long before, but he never adhered to the agreement, instead using force against the Kurds. Such "semi-autonomous" setups are not unknown, as the long contested German majority areas of "Alsace-Lorraine" in France achieved such after World War Two, and likewise, as did the German majority area of South Tyrol in Italy after World War Two. In these cases, much self government was granted, which guaranteed the German language and cultural heritage of the regions, but the areas also remained a part of France and Italy, respectively, and the people were citizens of those respective nations. Finland too was a largely self governing grand duchy of the Russian Empire during the 1800s and up until 1917.

****** Just from news reports I've seen, not all Sunnis support ISIS, and indeed many fear ISIS, which has a reputation for atrocities, and has been imposing strict Islamic law in conquered areas. Americans take note! This is what can happen when super reactionary groups want to take a country far back in time.

WORD HISTORY:
Far-This word goes back to Indo European "per," which the notion of "beyond." Its Old Germanic offspring was "ferro," ^ which meant "beyond, further." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "feorr," which meant "distant, far, remote" (also used in terms of time), and this later became "far." The other Germanic languages have: German has "fern," Low German "feern," West Frisian "fier," Dutch "ver," Danish and Norwegian "fjern," Icelandic "fjar-," and Swedish "fjärr."

^ The Indo European "p" often became "f" in its Old Germanic offshoot.

The Ship That Sailed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is There A Nurse In The House?

Just some food for thought here:

Not long after his election, President Barack Obama made a choice to pursue health care reform, part of which would provide most citizens with some type of medical insurance coverage. Reform of America's "health care system," a "system" where various figures suggest "the health care system" makes up something like one sixth or even one fifth of the American economy, was/is a daunting task.

To tackle that system, the President decided to use a general blueprint taken from Republicans, especially one Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, but also commented upon by none other than Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. These two Republicans were left with much lying, I mean, "explaining" to do to the conservative base of the Republican Party, as well as to the country, not long thereafter. Be that as it may, the President chose a VERY difficult fight, if for no other reason than how so many lives are touched in some way by "the health care system," and I don't just mean by the care or non care they get, but also how the "system" affects the economic interests of so many lives; thus, there are many "interest groups" involved in this very complicated system. Once the president made the decision, however, he could never really put into simple words what he wanted to do to this highly complex system. The reason is very simple: it is a highly complex system with many different interest groups. Let's see, did I already say that? A change that might benefit one group, might tick off another group. Republicans gleefully rubbed their hands together as they attacked, and sowed doubts about, the President's reform attempts.

Last summer I had to have some medical tests done and I was talking with one of the nurses. Actually two of the nurses were talking about the changes coming to the health care system and I chimed in, not that I have many opinions. To be honest, I really didn't express my opinions, rather I asked a couple of questions of the more talkative nurse, including what she thought should be done about "the system." She replied that she really didn't know, but that the reforms were not going to totally work, and that neither would "socialized medicine," citing Britain as her example.* She said our system was "corrupt"** and that it really needed to be completely overhauled, because it was so out of whack. She noted how there are so many interest groups involved and proceeded to make that point very clear, as she said in the socialized medicine system in Britain, nurses only make $11 an hour, and that she would never work for such a small salary,*** and I don't blame her, since we've heard so much how the wealthy have to make a gazillion bucks on most projects, or it isn't worth it to them, although cutting workers' wages and benefits is somehow supposed to inspire workers to work until they pretty much drop dead, less they be called "lazy" or "moochers." And people thought slavery was over.

* It is only to fair to note that Britain's medical system is highly supported by the public there, although there are also specific criticisms.

** I don't recall why, but I failed to have her explain what she meant by "corrupt," although you must remember, she and the other nurse weren't just sitting twiddling their thumbs, they were taking constant readings of my blood pressure, my heart rate, looking at screens and computers and other such things, sometimes requiring them to tell me I had to be still for a period, a difficult thing for me to do, except they successfully enforced it by telling me I wouldn't get a lollipop for good behavior, which made me clam up tighter than super wealthy employers when employees ask for a ten cent an hour raise.

*** For a regular 40 hour week that translates to a little less than $23,000 a year. I checked the $11 an hour figure for Britain, but I really could not confirm that amount, as for one thing, there are many classifications of nurses, with different salaries, but as I recall, the lowest figure I could find was something more like $14-$15, when calculated as an hourly rate, which, again based upon 40 hours a week, comes to about $29,000 to $31,000 annually. Again, just some caveats: I "assume" most nurses commonly work more than 40 hour weeks in Britain (and in many countries, including the U.S., for that matter). Further, I'm not certain how many nurses actually work for an "hourly" wage, but rather more likely under some salary guarantee, although I could be wrong. Then also, how many nurses, even as a percentage, actually make the lowest amount, I do not know, but I saw figures for some types of nurses which equated to annual incomes of more like $40,000-$60,000. As I recall, American nurses do seem to make a bit more, but not a great deal more, unless they are in the upper echelons. Also, where the nurse got the $11 an hour figure, I do not know; after all, I didn't exactly ask her for references, but I'm NOT saying she is wrong, but I didn't get the impression from my checking that British nurses "typically" make amounts less than the "14-$15" figure I mentioned above.

WORD HISTORY:
Well-This is the word generally used as an adverb meaning "in good condition, very satisfactory." I'll cover the noun/verb word of this spelling soon, as it is a different word. This word, closely related to "will" ("to wish, to desire"), goes back to Indo European "wel/wol," which had the idea of "desire, wish," which led to the extended meaning, "pleasing" (if you have desires/wishes, they are what "pleases" you). This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wela/wola," with the same general "desire, wish" meanings. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wel," which meant "very much, completely, abundantly," with the notion of "abundance, totality = being pleasing." Old English "wel" then became "wele," before the modern form. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "wohl,"  Low German has "woll,"  West Frisian "wol," Dutch "wel," Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic have "vel," and Swedish has "väl. All of these Germanic forms mean "well," but in both German and West Frisian the words also means "probably."

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.  

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

First published in August 2013


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

First published in July 2013


What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

Barack Obama has now been president for four and one half years. So what about him? What of the comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt, at least early on? I will be doing "at least" two parts to this evaluation of President Obama, a man we now know far more about now than we did in 2008, but we tend to learn more about any president after they've been in office for awhile. Chester Arthur became president upon the assassination of President James Garfield in the early 1880s.* Arthur had developed his political career through the (then) Republican political machine in New York.** To the surprise of both machine politicians and reformers alike, as president, Arthur pursued reform policies that went completely against his former support of the corrupt existing spoils system. While Barack Obama still has more than three years left in his second term, where is he now, and what did we get in 2008 and again in 2012?

First, it is important to remember, Barack Obama had a fast rise in American politics, with his first elected office being as a state senator in the Illinois State Senate in 1996, a position he retained until 2004, when he was elected by a large margin to the United States Senate from Illinois. He experienced one bump in the political road, that being a failed run for a congressional seat, when he was decisively defeated in the Democratic primary by the incumbent. He held his U.S. Senate seat until just after he was elected President of the United States in November 2008. Obama came to the presidency at a time when the country, and indeed the world, were reeling from a major economic downturn and financial crisis. Further, many Americans had grown weary, and downright skeptical, of the war in Iraq, as that war had overshadowed the war in Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden, the overall leader of Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda. More than anything, Americans were worried about the economy, which had been in a major plummet since the fall of 2008, complete with bank failures and skyrocketing unemployment. For my Republican friends who like to believe that without the economic collapse, John McCain may have won the 2008 election, I just want to say, "if" there hadn't been a Great Depression, Herbert Hoover likely would have won a second term. Anyway, here's my take on President Obama:

Due to the circumstances when he took office, President Obama was often compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, aka "FDR" (from here on, I'll use "FDR" when mentioning Roosevelt). First, it's never completely fair to compare presidents, because they never all have the same challenges nor the same circumstances during their time in office. FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of an economic collapse the likes of which the country had never seen. Unemployment was around 25%, there were many other workers on part time, and prices were falling, as major deflation gripped the nation. Further, when FDR took the oath of office, the country was in the midst of a major bank panic. FDR and his advisers had had those 3 1/2 years of the Great Depression to see how Herbert Hoover tried to deal with the collapse. FDR's advisers liked some of Hoover's programs and plans in general, but they did not like Hoover's limitations and implementations of his programs. They took many of Hoover's ideas, but they reformulated them to their own ways of thinking.

Barack Obama came to office as the economy was still plunging downward at an alarming rate. The recession which started in late 2007 had taken on ominous proportions in the fall of 2008, as the nation's banking and overall financial system, overwhelmed by massive numbers of bad mortgages, wavered and threatened to come crashing down; thus bringing about what later came to be called, "the Great Recession." Obama and his advisers didn't have quite the "luxury" of watching George W. Bush trying to deal with the collapsing economy on the scale that FDR had watched Hoover, but Obama did have an advantage unavailable to FDR ... HISTORY. The incoming Obama administration knew from the history of the Great Depression and the time thereafter how to try to stem an economic collapse. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also knew the history of the Great Depression, as he had made it a part of concentrated effort in his educational studies. The answer was ... SPENDING. While they knew the answer, the problem was, the Bush administration had run huge deficits for years; cutting taxes (especially for the wealthiest Americans), fighting wars, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and shoring up the security of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. As I noted, Bush cut taxes, and Americans were never asked to help pay for all of the the new spending during his two terms as president. In spite of Republican attempts to act as if the history of federal deficits began on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took office, George W. Bush bequeathed a federal deficit of more than a trillion and a third dollars to Obama on that day. This meant the Obama administration would have to TOTALLY borrow the money to combat the economic plunge the country was experiencing. The Bush administration initiated bailouts for the auto industry and major bailouts for the American banking industry, fearful it would collapse. The bank bailout law allocated a maximum of $700 billion.*** The auto bailouts were much smaller and were done to tide the companies over until the new administration came into office. For the banks, through other maneuvers in addition to the bailout law, the Federal Reserve provided trillions of dollars (I'm not sure we actually know to this day how many trillions). Bernanke, a Republican appointed to head the Federal Reserve by George W. Bush, advocated major spending by the federal government, at one point saying that the threat of deflation (generally falling prices such as happened during the Great Depression) had to be combated, even if money had to be dropped out of airplanes.

Here's the idea behind Bernanke's statement and the general idea of spending to combat an economic downturn. During the Great Depression so many Americans had little or no money, there was a lack of demand for goods and services, which only brought more layoffs and business failures; that is, a downward spiral. Government spending tried to make up some of the loss of purchasing power, but back then, this was all something of a new theory, and it took study of the lessons of the Great Depression to put the ideas into a more concrete plan of action for the future. As I mentioned earlier, Bernanke had done significant study of the Great Depression through much of his life and he used this knowledge to combat the Great Recession, along with support for the Obama administration's efforts, including up to the present about the federal budget. Some Republicans and business people screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in protest to the Bernanke and Obama anti-recession program, much like some Republicans, some conservative Democrats and business people screamed, shouted, and stomped their feet against FDR in the 1930s. In my opinion, the business-type ideas that have developed over the centuries and the idea that they can never be wrong has just been carried to extremes by some. Of course they screamed and shouted, and I'm sure many American bankers did the same, until THEY needed their asses bailed out. The idea is, to be quite honest, when Uncle Sam dispersed money during the Great Depression, the greediest of the greedy didn't have direct access to much of that money, as some went to provide public service jobs in a variety of ways, so they called it "wasteful," and .... they screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in a tantrum. Folks, they want YOUR MONEY! That's what all of this kind of stuff is about, including all the nonsense about privatizing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any government money. They want their cut! If you get help in some way from government, at whatever level, federal, state or local, they're pissed, because they didn't get their cut. Government can go around them and they don't like it.

President Obama kept and generally adhered to the bank bailout law, signed into law by President George W. Bush. Further, the Obama administration proposed a "stimulus package" of about $800 billion to inject money into the economy through tax cuts and public spending, and they got larger bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler in the auto industry. In return, Uncle Sam took stock in the auto companies, a move which brought cries of "socialism" from the political right, as if the sun would never shine again. As I type this, I can't look out the window, because the sunlight is too bright. Further, the auto companies agreed to reorganize, in part by a scale back in the number of vehicle models they had. Gradually the economic plunge began to slow and the economy stabilized, although it faced strong headwinds from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which shut down a fairly large sector of the economy, as first the spill and then the clean up proceeded. Republicans pounced, but I believe most Americans realized the oil spill had damaged not only the Gulf coast, but the entire American economy. At least I didn't hear Americans echoing what Republican Congressman Joe Barton said in a public hearing. The Congressman said that the deal reached between the Obama administration and BP for the oil giant to put $20 billion into a fund for compensation to victims of the disaster was a "shakedown" of BP by the White House and he apologized to BP for such!

The economy has continued to recover to this day, but the pace has been slow to steady, not overwhelming, and unemployment has gradually dropped into the mid 7% range. Part of the slow recovery, in my opinion at least, has had to do with the scale back of state and local governments hard hit by the recession and the corresponding revenue drop, at least until more recently. Private business began rehiring, albeit slowly, but simultaneously state and local governments cut payrolls, often making for something of a trade off. It's also important to remember, that while the Great Recession pales in comparison to the Great Depression of the 1930s, it took until about 1941 to fully recover from that depression, which started in 1929! Of course, if you've been out of work for a couple of years, it doesn't matter how much we compare our recent history with the 1930s, YOU'RE HURTING, and neither history nor statistics does anything for you. Another thing is, many American business people, always driven by the bottom line, prefer to invest in their business facilities in other countries. This is not a one way street, as American-made products are also sold to other countries, but when American companies choose to produce goods they once made here in overseas locations and then ship those products back here, it hurts! They also seem to keep money in banks outside of the U.S., so as not to have to pay taxes on it. Now you can say that's smart, but America continues to crumble, and while you might like some of those low prices you get for certain foreign made products, we'll see how well you like working for foreign wages. Eventually that's what's going to happen for many. Why do you think Romney didn't want to release much information on his income and taxes? Whether he did anything illegal, I can't say, but I'm sure it was because he knew how bad it would look. They always like their scamming the system to get tax breaks and such, until they have to face the American public, then they don't want you to know, because they know exactly what you're going to think, so they've got to hide it from you.

So on combating the Great Recession, I'd give President Obama a "B+," but there are other things tied to the economy I'll be covering in the next installment and his grade may not be so high.  

* President Garfield was born in what was to later become suburban Cleveland, Ohio. He is buried in Cleveland at Lake View Cemetery, located by the Little Italy neighborhood in the general area of the University Circle section of town. For those interested: http://www.universitycircle.org/

** Both parties had political machines in New York and elsewhere, so this was not just Republicans.

*** All of the 700 billion was not dispersed to financial institutions, and Congress (Democrats then controlled both houses) and the Obama administration lowered the total amount to $475 billion from the $700 billion. The U.S. Treasury reports on the money to Congress, and the report from earlier this year indicates that only $418 billion was actually dispersed, and that the Treasury has received $405 billion in return, leaving a relatively small balance yet owed. The "incoming" money has come from a variety of sources, including dividends and interest, but the biggest amount by far has come from companies paying back the money they received. The auto industry got about $80 billion total and currently about $51 billion has been returned to the Treasury. 

WORD HISTORY:
Pimento-This is a really interesting word. Watch how and why the meanings evolved over time. This word goes back to Indo European "peig/peikh," which meant "to cut, to carve," the notion of which led to "to carve decorations into an object." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "pingere," and the idea of "decorate or adorn" broadened further into "decorate with color;" thus came the meaning, "to paint." This then spawned the Latin noun "pigmentum," which meant "color, paint," but also later it took the meaning "vegetable juice," because of the bright color of the juice. Vegetable juice was often added to foods for color and flavor, and  Spanish, a Latin-based language, had its version of the word as "pimenton," which made the "vegetable juice" meaning into the more specific "red pepper," but this later broadened into "sweet peppers of any color." The idea of using peppers to season food also gave Spanish "pimienta," to mean "black pepper." English borrowed the word from Spanish in the late 1600s or early 1700s, likely from of the islands in the Caribbean, as the word meant both "red sweet pepper" (the vegetable), but also "tropical dried berry used as a spice" ("allspice," so called in English because of its seeming blend of spice flavors). German also borrowed the word, but from French, as "Piment," and it's the German word for "allspice."

Herbert Hoover: March Toward Reactionary, Part Three/Final

While Herbert Hoover took the Federal government into the economy and into direct relief aid to the states, his words did not keep pace with his actions, as he spoke as if his America of old was still there all the same and unchanged, as such a great system would never need the programs he had just initiated. This was one of the reasons Hoover received little credit for his actions, since he himself denied they were changes to the system, although his limitations on his own programs left these programs far from achieving their potential to stabilize the economy, which was much more the reason for the lack of acknowledgement to Hoover. When smacked in the face by reality like bankers not wanting to make loans and charities being overwhelmed by impoverished citizens, Hoover did indeed change, but he could not bring himself to acknowledge that change. It is tough to tell what Hoover actually believed, as he later became one of the main critics of the New Deal; yet, later still, he admitted that he likely would have signed the same legislation that FDR signed; that is,  ... THE NEW DEAL! And the New Deal had its roots in many of Hoover's own policies.

Upon leaving the presidency, Hoover was one bitter man. He had shown signs of such during his time in office, as he seemed bitter at the terrible hand he had been dealt for the pinnacle of his career, the presidency. Hoover the humanitarian leader, Hoover the businessman and Hoover the Secretary of Commerce was used to giving orders and lecturing others, not having to garner votes from politicians or listen to their lecturing. He was very shy, but supremely self confident in his ideas to the point that when they failed, he kept going, almost contemptuous of others' ideas. Hoover, in my opinion, had a weak ego; that is, he was insecure to the point where a criticism of one of his plans was like a personal insult. In the rough and tumble world of politics, all of this took a toll on Herbert Hoover. He and FDR had been friends for years, but Hoover ended up detesting Roosevelt, partially because of Roosevelt's criticisms during the presidential election of 1932, when Roosevelt easily defeated Hoover, and Hoover took the criticisms  personally, as he had not come up in the give and take world of politics, and that insecurity of his was always there. When Roosevelt initiated the New Deal, taken in part from Hoover's ideas and policies, Hoover blasted it, in my opinion, because someone else came up with the necessary changes needed to make the ideas more successful. This created resentment in Hoover and it spilled out into the open as he bitterly attacked FDR and his administration and moved himself into the role of something of an arch conservative hero, a place he would pretty much hold until his death. Maybe someone should have tried to convince Hoover early on that the New Deal, at least in part, was really his idea and he might then have supported it, but in fact, Roosevelt and the Democrats didn't need Hoover's blessing, as the very mention of Hoover's name could draw highly negative responses at public events for many years, including when his image appeared in newsreels at theaters. As sensitive a man as he was, all of this negative use of his name embittered him all the more, and it wasn't until some Democrats began to feel a little guilty that Hoover mellowed a tad, and that first came when Harry Truman was president. Hoover, at Truman's request, helped to reorganize the federal government to save money, and he and Truman developed a friendship of sorts, but Hoover, ever hypersensitive to criticism, didn't trust Truman either, as old Harry was a politician, and he used Hoover's name to scare the hell out of some Americans at various political events. I'm sure Truman just saw it all as politics, but Hoover was furious at what he saw as personal insults.

Hoover has links to conservatives even today, except he was never as mean and nasty while in office as some of today's "take me back to the good old Stone Age" conservatives, and while he lived in something of a dream world about his policies and an idealistic America; in fact, he saw problems and at least he made an effort to solve them, albeit with limitations. The desire of today's conservatives to repeal the estate tax would have made Herbert Hoover furious, as he believed great fortunes should not be allowed to be passed on intact, with the biggest being broken up to give others a chance to share in the wealth, and his tax program was highly progressive, not regressive like that of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or Paul Ryan. Like today's conservatives though, Hoover wasn't too crazy about facts that disproved his own ideas, although he didn't have Fox News to cover for him. He did spout a lot of things along the line of today's conservatives about "America is the best at _______" (fill in the blank), although facts would contradict some of those things, just as today. Declaring that we're the best at everything was not a way to deal with problems and flaws in Hoover's time, nor today, but Hoover often eventually relented. Some modern conservatives have done everything they can to disavow Hoover, since they are NEVER wrong, just as their philosophy of deregulation had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in 2008. If you believe that, would you like to buy the Washington Monument? I'll sell it to you. Like today's conservatives, Hoover also tried to revise his role in history by continuing to advocate for his policies, pretty much stating they would have succeeded had the country stuck with him instead of turning to Roosevelt. The ultimate thing was, Hoover and his administration misjudged the severity of the economic downturn more than just at its beginning and therefore Hoover's  prescription of trying to restore confidence by helping banks, railroads, and business in general was inadequate to deal with it,* as too many Americans had little or no money left to up demand for goods and services. Confidence helps when people HAVE money, but are afraid to spend it, or even deposit it in banks. Even the larger expenditures by New Deal programs under Roosevelt couldn't quickly help the beleaguered economy to recovery quickly; that's how bad things were.

Over time Hoover's image did recover to some degree, but some people still detested him decades later. It bears repeating, Hoover was not a true progressive nor a true conservative during his presidency, but he most definitely took on the mantle of conservatism after he left office, accompanied by that delusional belief that he had not deviated from American individualism and by his extreme bitterness. The passing of time and the political atmosphere surrounding Hoover had progressives eventually discover (or perhaps rediscover) Hoover's progressive side, which then gave reactionaries something to point to, in the sense, "If progressives like some things about Hoover, he can't be a conservative."

The economic and financial meltdown in 2008 rekindled interest in Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression, in general, as people wanted to see how that major historical event developed and was handled all of those decades ago. The problem is, in more recent times, many people obviously knew little or nothing about the Great Depression, as they seemed to want to experience such an event in their own lifetime; thus we had awful policies put into place, or policies that were not enforced, bringing instability and a virtual total collapse of the American and world economies. While most of the perpetrators have been Republicans, some Democrats seemed anxious to be a part of this "let's see what kind of a great depression we can create" philosophy. Throughout the build up to the 2008 meltdown lay the bizarre and troubling idea of "the country should be concerned with the plight of millionaires and billionaires; they've got it tough," instead of what had been happening to the middle class and the poor. These groups would suffer even more from the economic mess of what has been called "the Great Recession." While Republicans scoffed at President Obama's remedies (also often at Ben Bernanke's policies, the Federal Reserve Chief), the economic plunge of late 2008 and early 2009 was halted, and matters never got out of hand as they did in the early 1930s, but recovery has been slow, just as it was in the 1930s. The problem this time was, some of the structural problems were not corrected, like with the banking industry, which has made me think Democrats too haven't studied the policies of their own political icon, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In my opinion, while health care reform was a very important policy, financial reform should have been the first item on the agenda after the stimulus package, but it was not. By the time financial reform was put on the front burner, the political situation had changed drastically, with a resurgent, ideologically fire-breathing GOP, invigorated by the unpopular health care law debate at that time, able to get a substantial watering down of financial reform. We'll see if all of this comes back to haunt us.    

Almost all that I've written in this three part series about Hoover comes from memory, and over the years, I've read a lot of books (some many times over) and articles about him, including his own memoirs. With so much done from memory, it's tough to "credit" specific authors for the information I've put into these articles, and some might not want to be "credited," since it is given from the perspective I've developed on Hoover over the decades (I mean this both seriously and humorously). I guess the biggest compliment to any and all of the authors is that I read their material and retained a good deal of it, that's how good the information was. What I've decided to do is to list a number of books I've read over the years which dealt in large part with Herbert Hoover. Some were more specific biographies of Hoover, others were not just about Hoover, but they dealt with parts of his life, most especially his presidency and his attempts to halt the Great Depression. Some of these books I no longer have on hand, and this list will certainly not be complete, as I'm sure I've read some books or articles years ago, the names of which I no longer recall.

"Herbert Hoover" by William Leuchtenburg; "The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover," 3 volumes by Herbert Hoover (there may be abridged/condensed versions available, but I'm not sure); "American Individualism" by Herbert Hoover; "Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive" by Joan Hoff; "An Uncommon Man-The Triumph of Herbert Hoover" by Richard Norton Smith; "Herbert Hoover-A Public Life" by David Burner; "The American Political Tradition" by Richard Hofstadter (has a very good chapter on Hoover: "Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of American Individualism"); "Herbert Hoover and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation" by James Stuart Olson; "The Great Depression" by John Garraty (obviously not just about Hoover); "The Great Depression-America 1929-1941" by Robert S. McElvaine (again, not just about Hoover, but with very good info and opinions on him-one of my favorite books on the subject); "Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman-A Documentary History" edited by Timothy Walch and Dwight M. Miller; "The Great Crash of 1929" by John Kenneth Galbraith; "The First New Deal" by Raymond Moley (has some info about the New Deal's ties to Hoover)

* To be honest, Democrats didn't know what the hell to do about the Great Depression either, thus they really didn't put forward many plans during Hoover's term, fearful they would then take part of the blame if the plans didn't work. FDR talked about "experimentation" in his inaugural speech, which tells you he wasn't exactly confident about specific plans either. 

WORD HISTORY:
Boor/Bower-These closely related words go back to Indo European "bu/bhu," which meant "dwell, live upon/on." They are closely related to the second part of "neighbor" (British spelling: "neighbour"), as neighbor simply means "a person (or people) who dwell(s) nearby," literally "nigh-dweller." The Indo European form gave its Old Germanic offspring "buraz," with the meaning "place where one dwells." This gave Old English "gebur," which meant "dweller, farmer," and also "bur," which meant "dwelling, cottage, hut, room for dwelling," but also meant "farmer, peasant," likely from the notion, "one who dwells in a hut/cottage in the countryside." This then became "bour," before "bower," by which time it also had taken on the meaning "lady's living quarter's in a palace/castle," as well as the "area in a garden sheltered by trees or leafy plants." "The Bowery" of New York City was simply a continuation of the Dutch term for what was then (the 1600s) an area with farms. As for "boor," it seems to have died out, but came back to English as a borrowing in the earlier 1500s from either Low German "bur," Dutch "boer," as England had much trade with northwestern Europe. It came into more prevalent usage in the late 1800s and early 1900s from contact and conflict with Dutch settlers in southern Africa who were called "Boers." The conflict between the Boers and British settlers and colonial authorities was termed "the Boer Wars" (there were two). The term "boorish," meaning "rude, ill-mannered or crude behavior," came from the notion of "behavior by farm/rural residents, as compared to the sophisticated behavior of city dwellers." The other Germanic languages have lots of relatives to English "bower" and "boor," some of which are: German has "Bauer" (pronounced very much like "bower"), which means both "farmer/peasant" and "birdcage" (from the sense "room, enclosed dwelling area"); Low German Saxon has "buur" (farmer); Dutch has both "buur" (neighbor) and "boer" (farmer);West Frisian has "boer" (peasant/farmer); Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have "bur" (cage); Icelandic has "búr" (cage).

Asking A Democrat A Few Questions

Hi folks! This is Dan Ratherbe in Philadelphia, as promised, with a Democrat who will answer all questions today with no holds barred. My guest is John Wussywuss.

DR: Welcome Mr. Wussywuss.

JW: I'm glad to be here, I think. I'm a little nervous. Don't make those questions too tough now.

DR: First, is it true if a Republican shouts "boo," that many Democrats jump into bed and pull the covers over their heads?

JW: No, that's not entirely true, because I bury my head under the pillow, but I actually prefer to use two pillows. Besides, those mean old Republicans don't always scare me, I sleep with the light on. 

DR: Is it true that President Obama has said he believes the Indians made a good deal with the Dutch in trading a few trinkets for Manhattan?

JW: Well, I believe what he said was that he felt the Indians bargained too hard with the Dutch and that they should have scaled back their offer before hitting the Dutch with such demands. After all, the Dutch offered some good trinkets. You couldn't find trinkets like that just anywhere, since that was before the five and dime stores were founded.

DR: Some have said President Obama negotiates with himself. How does he tell who wins? 

JW: I believe Harry Reid tells him. You know, Harry was once a boxer, but not any more. 

DR: I'm sure you remember that Governor Deval of Massachusetts said at last year's Democratic Convention that Democrats need to grow a spine. Do you agree?

JW: We have a spine, and besides, that guy's going to get us into trouble saying things like that. Going to get the Republicans mad, then where will we be? Just like those people who wanted the "public option" in the health care law. Geez, if we'd have pushed for that, the Republicans would have thrown everything into stopping the law from passing.

DR: You mean they didn't throw everything into trying to stop health care from passing? After all Mr. Wussywuss, Republicans and their allies far outspent supporters of the health care law.

JW: I think I've said enough on this subject. You're aiming to get me into trouble with the Republicans too. Next they won't even sit with me in the lunch room.

DR: You mean some Republicans actually sit with you?

JW: No, but is that any way to get them to start?

DR: Okay, last question. How many Democrats believe the jellyfish should be be the symbol of the party?

JW: Oh I really can't say at the moment. At last count the jellyfish was neck and neck with a one day old fawn. I kind of favor the fawn, they're cute.

DR: Thank you Mr. John Wussywuss. You've just heard Mr. Wussywuss talk about the Democratic Party, President Obama and the public option on health care.

JW: Shhhh! Hush! There you go with that public option stuff again. I'm tellin' you. You're going to get the Republicans all stirred up and they'll be shouting "boo" at me before I even get home and I don't have any pillows with me. You don't care, leaving a poor guy defenseless. What's that?

DR: It's just your shadow Mr. Wussywuss.

JW: Are you sure it's not Mitch McConnell or Eric Cantor?       

WORD HISTORY:
Rear (rere)-English has a couple of words "rear," and this is the archaic and dialectal one that formed the first part of "rearmouse" (once also spelled "reremouse"), which was long the main English word for "bat" (the animal), a word that remained in use dialectically after "bat" replaced it. It goes back to Indo European "khere/khera," which had the meaning of "mix, stir," but with the underlying notion being "motion or movement used to mix something." This gave its Old Germanic offspring a form something like "hrerazjana," which had the same meanings. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hreran," which meant "to shake, to agitate, to move," and this then became "reren." As other words replaced the meanings of "reren," it seems to have been confined to the above mentioned forms of the first part of a compound that meant "bat," with the movement/agitation idea combined with "mouse," to give "fluttering mouse, mouse that stirs/agitates the air." Some of the Germanic relatives of "rear/rere" are still around, as German still has "rühren" (whose older form was spelled "hruoren"), which still means, among other things, "to stir/mix ingredients, move ones limbs or fingers;" Low German Saxon has "röhren;" Dutch has "roeren," which means "to stir, to beat/whip (sauce or batter), to shake;" West Frisian has "oanroere" (a compound which means "touch," once also a secondary meaning in English, and still used in German along with the similar to Frisian "anrühren"); Danish and Norwegian have "røre," meaning "to stir;" Icelandic has "hraera," meaning "stir;" Swedish has "röra," which means "stir, move, touch." Notice that Icelandic is the only Germanic language to retain the initial "h" from long ago. Also, the "touch" meaning can be in the sense "affect," as in, "Their gift touched me deeply." 

The Political Realities Are Tough

I'm writing here what I believe lies at the center of much of the right wing obstruction of just about EVERYTHING in Congress. There was a HUGE political price for health care legislation, dubbed Obamacare, which by the way, I feel did not go far enough, as the public option was necessary. Whether you're for the health care law or against it is not the immediate point here. The conservative movement was demoralized after the 2008 election and revelations about sexual escapades for some prominent Republicans only hurt them further. The health care legislation gave them tremendous energy, and they played it to the hilt, obviously scaring the hell out of many Americans with the ads they ran, and, like it, not like it, it got Republicans back on their feet. The President seemed unable to concisely explain the legislation, although that's understandable for such an extensive subject. This left it open to attack by opponents, and attack they did. Since the passage of health care legislation, civilization hasn't ended, and favorability for the law has risen, although some of the more contentious aspects of the law are yet to be implemented.   

The health care struggle came as the country prepared for the 2010 Census. Those census numbers were then used to determine congressional apportionment for the House. The 2010 election was a major Republican victory, but not just because they took control of the House of Representatives, but because they won several key governorships and control of state legislatures, or strengthened existing majorities. These are the people who determine the redrawing of congressional district boundaries. Here in Ohio the Republicans were blatant about how they redrew the boundaries in their favor.* My congressman at that point was well known Democrat, Dennis Kucinich. He was essentially forced out by combining what was left of his district with a larger part of fellow Democrat Marcy Kaptur's district. She won the Democratic primary and then faced off against none other than Republican Joe the Plumber, less well known by his real name Samuel Wurzelbacher, whom she handily defeated. Betty Sutton, known for proposing the "cash for clunkers" program, had much of her district combined into a Republican leaning district which pitted her against incumbent GOP Jim Renacci. She lost in November. 

Democrats did very well last November for president and the Senate, AND they got more votes in total for the House of Representatives, but only gained 8 seats. That's because the districts were redrawn to GOP advantage in many cases. Conservative tilting districts were often solidified into strongly conservative districts, and middle of the road districts were often given at least a conservative tilt. The Republicans representing these districts do not feel the pressure of the public to cooperate with the President and Democrats, because many of their constituents agree with obstructing anything and everything Obama or any Democrat proposes. Barring some major shift in public opinion overall, we'd better get used to it too, because defeating Republicans in many of these districts will be very difficult AND if it is to be done, will likely require right-leaning Democratic candidates. 

"If" any gun legislation passes in the near future, it is likely to be watered down, just like the financial legislation, the stimulus, and the health care legislation got watered down. If the watered down versions fail to do much, Republicans will then say, "See, we told you gun control doesn't work," just as they've attacked the stimulus measure and health care. I'm for stronger legislation on many things, but it's not in the cards and I can jump up and down, stomp my feet, and throw a temper tantrum, but that won't change it. I have not always agreed with the President, and I and others on the progressive side have felt he hasn't pushed that agenda enough, but that's far easier for us sitting out here to complain about. I appreciate that the President has had to deal with the political reality I mentioned above every day he's been in office. 

What troubles me is, voting is not like an essentially meaningless football game,** where you just want YOUR side to win. There are issues that can have a profound effect on the nation and even the world. My father was a Republican, and he was a man who read a lot and knew issues pretty well, so that he knew what basically was a potential benefit to the nation, but in the end his highly competitive nature tended to see political matters like a football game, where egos and self esteem are illogically tied to the team of your choice, rather than to what is good for the nation. Unfortunately he cheered on the Republicans even when he felt they were wrong. This is often what politics is however, an emotional force rather than a thoughtful one.  

* Democrats have done similar, but at least here in Ohio, I've never heard such an outcry about the unfairness of the process as this last time by Republicans. The practice is called "gerrymandering."

** While a school or some players or a community may benefit from a football game (or some other sporting event), the fact is, the game isn't going to change the world. I'm not against sports, but I think we put an awful lot of value on them. On the professional side, players in the major sports make millions every year while the public pays outrageous prices to see these events, yet that same public complains about giving teachers a few hundred or a thousand dollars in a raise. Teachers and education CAN change the world. 

WORD HISTORY:
Tough-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but it goes back to Old Germanic, but to exactly what Old Germanic form I'm not really sure. Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had "toh," with the "h" having emphasis enough that later this produced the "gh" spelling, but which eventually came to be pronounced as if "ff." The German form also once had the more guttural ending in "zach," which has since become "zäh," obviously taking it back close to the Old English form. Dutch, another close relative of English, has "taai," Low German Saxon has "taag," Swedish has "tuffa," and Norwegian has "tøff." The meaning in Old English remains with us today as the main meaning, "something difficult to bite or to break."