Like Mr. Howell, Trump Says, "Make It Fit"

I'm returning briefly to one of my all time favorite shows, "Gilligan's Island." In the show, for those unaware, Mr. Howell, properly known as Thurston Howell III, played by Cleveland's own Jim Backus, is a wealthy business tycoon and one of the castaways who were shipwrecked during a storm. Like a dictator, Mr. Howell is accustomed to giving orders, and subordinates hop to it. By the way, he sees subordinates as everyone else on the planet. Like Donald Trump (played by Donald Trump), Mr. Howell's feathers get ruffled when anyone dares to point out his mistakes or dares to oppose his desires. Even with his great wealth, Howell is always scheming to get even more wealth, sometimes at the expense of his fellow castaways and even of his own wife. Can you imagine Mr. Howell as president, with access to the U.S. Treasury, especially after getting rid of anyone who could investigate any dipping into the till or other lawbreaking? In spite of his faults, Mr. Howell could eventually come to a reality check on his behavior and then try to make amends, although it might take some stomping and pouting first. 

Anyway, in one episode the shipwrecked little group finds separate pieces of an ancient stone tablet with drawings they believe might disclose a secret way off the island. Like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, each person tries to put a piece of the puzzle together. When Mr. Howell tries, the piece doesn't fit, so he says, "Break off a piece and make it fit!" Rigging the truth will make any message of the stone tablet wrong and of no benefit.

Photo of Jim Backus as Thurston Howell III from the Turner Home Entertainment/Warner Brothers Complete Gilligan's Island First Season DVD Set

WORD HISTORY:
Sub-This is not the shortened form for "submarine," but rather the widely used prefix. "Sub-" is distantly related to "up," "open," "oft" and "often," all words from the Germanic roots of English, and it is also related to a whole range of words with the prefix "sub-" (examples: "subordinate," "submerge"), and to many words beginning with "sus" (examples: "suspect," "sustain"). "Sub-" goes back to the Indo European root "upo," with the notion of "from under" or "from below," "to go over/above." This gave Italic "supo," seemingly a prefixed form from Indo European, and this gave Latin "sub," with generally the same or similar meanings to the Indo European form. This was not borrowed by English so much directly, but rather along with a number of words from Latin or from Latin-based languages, and it was then used by English as a word forming prefix, like for "subway," a word with the Latin prefix, but with a Germanic base and an original English word (way).        

Greed For The Moment

Throughout our lives we hear about the need to think ahead, but I'm not sure we can really do that, most of us anyway, at least not enough of us or far enough into the future. When I was in school in the 1960s, there was talk of computers being the way of the future and that students needed to choose training for that future. Some heeded that advice from those with the foresight into the developing computer advances, but too few, in my opinion, including myself, took the advice. It's a tough sell telling people, especially when we're young, that we need to do such and such for the future. For young people the future is the next school dance, the next school sporting event or the next legal holiday when school will be closed. With the wealthiest of Americans, some people ask, "Can't they see where their greed is leading?" So will greed for the moment threaten to later bring down dog-eat-dog capitalism? No question about it, the money is going to the top of the income ladder, but is there a point where that top rung of the ladder collapses from the weight of all the wealth up there?

Technology and the sending of sectors of the economy out the country for cheap labor and ways to get around workplace and environmental regulation can only go so far, as the resulting consequences of stagnant or declining wages for so many Americans come home to roost. It's a vicious cycle, with lower wages requiring cheaper goods for lower paid workers to be able to afford to buy them, but with the increased profits going to the top, where few seemingly can see, or want to see, from that lofty perch, that the Titanic is heading for an iceberg.

The growing income gap is not just about technology and the decline in manufacturing, but also about the  financial sector, which has expanded as a part of the economy for the last several decades. As finance expanded, it began to need more income to sustain the big and increasing salaries in the industry, as well as its growing workforce. The financial sector makes money a number of ways, two of which obviously are through fees for various services and commissions on transactions. How do you collect more commissions? By selling more stocks and bonds. How do you get people to invest more in stocks and bonds? You show them profits. How do you show them more profits? By selling more of something and by cutting costs to increase margins. As you can see, it's not a big leap to "cutting wages and benefits by shipping jobs and production to places where costs are low, thus increasing profits." If true wealth is measured by tangible items; that is, things we can actually touch and which usually have some endurance, what does the financial sector produce for Americans? Not a hell of a lot, although it can be involved in helping produce wealth and it IS important. We've seen a similar situation with the growth in lawyers, as a number of Americans poured into law schools to be trained in legal matters, a profession that typically pays well above average income. What happened? Lawsuits went wild, as the expanding legal profession needed more business to pay for all of the added lawyers and incomes. The action of the financial and legal sectors is not a terribly tough one to figure out folks, as at its heart, it is about self interest.  

Hm, I don't know about you, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the need for more income brought about risky ventures in the financial sector, especially after protections against nonsense were removed in the 1999/2000 era.  If such risky ventures pay off, those involved can make big money, but when they fail or are so misguided, as was the mortgage fiasco, LOOK OUT, but it was greed for the moment, "we want money NOW!" Few, if any, at the top paid no real penalty and they certainly did not spend any time in prison, although their schemes almost brought down the entire world economy. In the end, to halt a potential collapse of world finance, governments, including the U.S., first under George W. Bush and then under Barack Obama, stepped in with money; that is, taxpayer money, to bolster the teetering financial system. So the rewards up to that point went to millionaires and billionaires, but the losses were covered by that dreaded entity ... GOVERNMENT; that is, society. Amazingly, many in the upper class speak against socialism, but I guess that only counts when they aren't the ones getting "socialized." (In fairness here, a good deal of the "bailout money" has been paid back.)

Most Americans can't save the necessary amount, if anything, for retirement. It's easy for the wealthy to talk about people needing to save money for retirement, they have money ANY TIME.* There is a high proportion of Americans living essentially paycheck to paycheck, a very dangerous situation (some say 3/4 of all Americans, but even if that's a bit high, and it's "only" 2/3, that's still not great either). Lack of savings makes Social Security mandatory, as it's the only thing to keep many older Americans from being totally destitute, and Medicare and Medicaid, both targets of the superegos and their right wing allies, provides needed medial care to the elderly, the poor and the disabled. Many Americans fiddle while their own personal Rome burns, oblivious to the scheming of the rightists and fascists who can't stand the fact that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are shared national programs. They want control and their cut of the action. Don't be fooled by "privatization" talk, meant only to open the door to the treasure chest for the wealthy interests. They always seek to make matters about money with the euphemism "free markets," because then they can control it; "free markets"=control by the wealthy, not anything else, there's no other definition. To the wealthy, Social Security just can't be right because it is in part financed by lower interest rate securities. To wealthy and financial people who love to talk about "yields" on stocks and bonds, that's almost criminal, because their own personal sense of business, driven by human greed (we all have it to some extent) just can't accept that. They lack the ability to grasp anything that isn't solely about making money.** They have to be regulated by us, because they can't self regulate; many lack the perspective necessary to do so. It often tends to be "greed for the moment." In one episode of "Gilligan's Island," the castaways are threatened by an active volcano. When the Professor needs a timing device for a bomb to act as a counter to the volcano, super millionaire Mr. Thurston Howell III SELLS him a clock. Even in the face of danger or death, he just couldn't give up that business idea of making a profit on something. It may only have been a television comedy, but there's an underlying truth there. All well and good to talk about the future, but people live in the present.

* America really took off as a "consumer" driven nation in the 1920s. Mass production of various goods needed a market to sell those goods, which brought investment in mass marketing to "encourage" Americans to buy products. Consumer credit (often called "charge accounts" back then) expanded tremendously to allow Americans to buy products on credit and pay for them in installments. The increasing spread of electricity and the invention of several electrical devices, like refrigerators, radios and mixers, saw sales skyrocket, and profits for companies soared too, but wages did not soar so much. After an intense run-up, the whole thing took a major nosedive in a little event termed the Great Depression. So when I say Americans cannot always save for retirement, what I mean is, many people make bad choices, buying things to "keep up with the Joneses," but then again, there are pulls and tugs at us going on all of the time. Self esteem is certainly in play, as some folks try hard to be seen as "cool" and part of "what's happnin'." On the other hand, those preaching for Americans to save are trying to have it both ways; that is, they want us to spend, spend, spend to buy their products and services, but then they preach about too much credit and too little savings. What the right balance is, I don't know, but I believe I'm safe in saying, "we aren't in balance, nor have we been, for quite some time."

** To add some balance, the opposites can't understand about human greed, let alone big money greed, and they seem to think things get financed from thin air. There is balance here somewhere, folks, but finding it is often difficult, especially in the last several decades of  the "greed is good" mentality.  

WORD HISTORY:
Wight-This ultimate origin of this now generally archaic word is unknown, and "apparently," besides forms in the Germanic languages, it has some connection with Slavic (Russian "vesc" and Old Church Slavonic "vesti," both meaning "thing, matter"), but it is related to English "whit," (small object, particle).^ Old Germanic had "wihktiz," which seems to have meant "substance, matter." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wiht," with the meaning "person, being, creature." Other forms in Germanic are: German "Wicht" (small child, rascal, imp, little creature); Low German "Wicht" (young girl); Dutch "wicht" (child, small creature); Swedish "vätte" (imp, gnome). I did not find a form in Frisian, but sources on this close relative of English are not exactly abundant, so such a form may well exist, or like English, it could now be archaic. Further I could not find forms in Danish, Icelandic or Norwegian.  

^ Now more commonly used in an expression like, "I don't even care one whit about it."   

^^ For the use of "wight" as part of the word that became modern "not," see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/08/success-not-excess.html

The Psychology of the Egomaniacs and the Race to the Bottom

Psychology is a part of all of our lives, because we have minds to think with, and all of our actions are based upon thought, even though with some it may seem with less thought than for others. None of us is truly "sane," whatever the hell that actually means, but some have "problems" that extensively affect their own lives and the  lives of others on a regular basis. Most societies have laws against rape, for instance, and people who seem to have the psychological need to "force themselves" on others are held accountable for those actions, regardless of their seeming need to do such things. Just because we have psychological needs doesn't mean society doesn't try to put controls on those needs. Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of the 1960s comedy "Gilligan's Island,"  had lots of psychology in his little comedy about seven people stranded on a small Pacific island. One of the seven main characters was Thurston Howell III, a multimillionaire, who in today's dollars would be a multi billionaire. Mr. Howell couldn't stop thinking about money, even though he had long before passed the amount any human being would have needed to live a very comfortable life. Even though the little group was on an uncharted island and in need of rescue, Mr. Howell schemed, even at times against his own wife, as he just couldn't stop wanting money and exercising the power that money gave him. Accustomed to having his own way, on the island he found that money could not always be as powerful a force as in regular society, because there was nothing to buy, although that didn't stop him from trying to gain more wealth through scheming, bribery and exploitation. Mr. Howell often thought he should have been the leader of the group of castaways, because of his wealth and the large number of corporations he owned. Government scared him, as overall it had the power to control him at times, and he once mentioned that he had had a dream about ordering the "wholesale arrest of the Supreme Court." In spite of Mr. Howell's sometimes ruthless behavior, he had a connection to reality and at times he wanted to be loved and respected by the others in the group, and he once drew up a will dividing his fortune among the castaways. He also was fearful that he would be seen as weak if he did good deeds; a frightening thought in itself, if you think about it. Even on the island, however, Mr. Howell's ego and sense of privilege couldn't get away from being reined in by law, as in one episode a conflict breaks out over the ownership of a chest, thought to contain great treasure, which had been discovered by Gilligan when he was doing to job for Mr. Howell,* but the group holds a "hearing" on the case, presided over by the Professor, as judge. So Mr. Howell was not a totally ruthless money grubber all of the time, and his insecurity was demonstrated by his need to have his Teddy Bear to cuddle up with at night.

In more recent times, the egomaniacs in American society have sought every possible way to avoid paying decent wages and offering employees benefits. Before you say, "Well Randy, I work for 'XYZ,' and my employer has provided decent pay and benefits for many years," ask yourself and check out why the employer has done such. Remember, while not all employers strive to be Ebenezer Scrooge in exploiting their employees, many do not just "give" good pay and benefits, although there are decent employers in this country who have consciences and who want to do the right thing, with occasional lapses. My guess is, there are likely more such than we ever hear about, perhaps because they aren't in need of the acclamation. And I don't want to imply that there aren't times of contentiousness between management and labor in those companies. Many years ago there was a furniture company where the warehouse men and the deliverymen were all Teamsters. I knew just about all of them and I know the things they said about the company and it's owners. You're probably thinking it was all bad, but it wasn't. Quite to the contrary, they mainly said good things about the primary owner, a lady (I knew her somewhat), although some remarks about some in her family were not quite as nice.** Over the years there was a strike or two, but there was never a lot of animosity, and certainly no hatred. In fact, one employee was found to have been drinking on the job, but the company didn't fire him, and he was just given a warning. Unfortunately, the guy didn't learn his lesson and when he did the same thing, the consequence was his termination. It was at that time that the relatively good relations between the Teamster employees and the company showed themselves, as one Teamster, a very good union man, told the fired man off in my presence, even telling him how the company had given him another chance that he then abused.

Why can't all management and employee relations be more like the above? Well we're back to psychology and especially to the superego-types in the business world who have taken over and driven the agenda for many sectors of the business world. They have done everything possible to fatten their already fat bank accounts, including moving plants and jobs overseas to get around American labor and American regulation; that is, law. It's hurt our country folks and most of you know it, whether you'll admit it or not. Some industries, like clothing, are now heavily located overseas in low wage countries, where they may well be owned by American corporations and then the finished products are shipped to the U.S. Such maneuvers has put pressure on American wages/benefits, forcing many Americans to have to look to buy cheaper foreign-made products, because they don't always have the money to buy American products. Of course the corporations and their minions say it's because American workers want to make too much money, or that federal, state or local regulations drive up costs, or a combination of both, forcing corporations to seek lower wages and less regulation elsewhere. Let's see ... when was the last time you heard that it might have something to do with corporate executives and the billionaire/millionaire stockholders wanting "more money?" The argument is NEVER framed in that way, as if these superegos are too important to question. This has truly become a "race to the bottom." Folks, you might think you won't be affected, but with this crap going on and on, it will HAVE to affect you too, if it hasn't already, and that includes if you're a small business owner, as the less money Americans have, the less money they have to spend at your business; thus, the less business for you. As I've said here before, the superegos haven't gone to all of the effort of moving production elsewhere, supporting anti-labor candidates and anti-labor agendas, just so they can pay you MORE; they want to pay you LESS! That's the whole point. Don't be in denial until it's too late!

* The conflict in this episode shows the technical aspects of law, as Mr. Howell "claims" ownership of the chest, because Gilligan was doing work for him. The Skipper, who handles Gilligan's side of the case, argues that Gilligan owns the chest, because he did the work for Mr. Howell as a favor and wasn't paid.

** There will always be a certain amount of contentiousness between labor and management, as, by and large, we humans don't much like to be told what to do, but it often also has a great deal to do with "how" management does the telling. I guess that's just the "psychology" to it.

WORD HISTORY:
Bleach-This goes back to Indo European "blehg," which had the notion of "shine, pale, bright." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "blaikjanan," a verb form which meant "to make pale, to make bright" (in some of its other Indo European relatives, the Indo European form took on meanings having to do with fire from the "bright, shine" idea). This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "blaecan," which meant "to make white or pale, to whiten," or in the modern sense, "to bleach." There were noun and adjectival forms in Old English such as the noun "blaece," which meant "skin ailment that made the skin dry and pale,"^ another noun "blaeco," which meant "paleness," and the adjective "blaec," which meant "pale," but it seems the modern noun (for the bleach product) was derived from the verb form. The other Germanic languages have: German "bleichen" (to bleach), "bleich" (pale) and "Bleichmittel" (bleach); Low German has "bleeken/bleken" (to bleach) and "Bleik" (bleach); Dutch "bleken" (to bleach) and "bleekmiddel" (bleach); Swedish "bleka" (to bleach) and "blekmedel" (bleach); Danish "bleg" (pale) and  "blegemiddel" (bleach); Icelandic "bleikja" (light/pale color) and "bleikur" (pale); Norwegian "blek" (pale) and "blekemiddel" (bleach);^^ I could not find any forms in Frisian.   

^ Some have also applied this English term to leprosy, a disease much disputed in what it meant long ago and it may well have meant different things to different people, including eczema, dermatitis and syphilis.

^^ The compound form of the noun in use in some other Germanic languages is a form of "middle" as the second part of the word. It is equivalent to English "medium," a word borrowed from Latin, which besides the literal meaning "in between," also means "a means to convey or do something, an agent;" thus those Germanic compound nouns essentially mean "agent/substance for bleaching, whitening." So, it is likely that had "medium" not been borrowed by English, we too might use a form of "middle" in certain compounds. By the way, Latin "medium" shares the same Indo European origin as the Germanic form which produced English "middle" and "mid."        

They Can't Stop The Money Obsession

Some people are good at making money. Some people are great "wheeler-dealers," something I've never been good at. Some people just can't get money and making money out of their minds, EVER! A favorite television comedy of mine in the late 1960s was "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir," starring Hope Lange, Edward Mulhare, and Charles Nelson Reilly.* The show was "based on" the 1940s movie with Rex Harrison and Gene Tierney. Reilly played Lange's nervous, money-loving, tightwad landlord. Even after all of these years, I still remember one episode where Reilly believes he will die within a few days. He has accumulated a substantial fortune, but with death staring him in the face, he decides to splurge on his funeral. When he goes to the funeral home to make all the arrangements for his own funeral, the undertaker is stunned to find Reilly willing to spend so lavishly. After making the initial plans, he asks what the bill will be. When the undertaker tells him the amount, Reilly's money-loving obsession kicks in, and he starts to make cuts. The cuts finally make the funeral less than most poor folks get.

There have always been people like Reilly's character and there always will be. I suppose they're insecure and afraid, deep inside. Remember Mr. Thurston Howell III, from the 1960s "Gilligan's Island?" While a multimillionaire, he needs his Teddy bear so he can sleep. The thing is, egos and insecurities have to have some control. For the last three + decades there has been all sorts of deregulation, permitting some of the most insecure and egotistical among us to ravage the country, in my opinion. Just look at how the income gap has grown during this time. Back when there was more regulation, the rich were still the rich, but there was some balance to the system, now...... Remember, they NEVER stop! It is up to us to put curbs on
them.

* A few years after "The Ghost And Mrs. Muir," Charles Nelson Reilly became a regular participant on the popular "Match Game," which had both a daytime and nighttime version. Years later Reilly publicly said he was gay.  

WORD HISTORY:
Funeral-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but it traces back to Latin "funus," which generally meant "funeral, burial service, death." This then produced Latin "funeralis," which meant "matters associated with a burial," which then gave Latin "funeralia," "the rites of burial." This gave French "funérailles," "funeral rites, funeral service." English borrowed the word from French in the mid 1400s. 

The Sermon Unheard

I first published this on November 27, 2006, and then again in October 2011, but with a "Word History," which did not accompany the original article. Unfortunately, this article hasn't really gone out of style, although Pope Francis has brought a refreshing change in tone and emphasis to religion, but much more is needed from others. Updated November 18, 2014.

"Please be seated, my brethren. I won't waste time with any preliminaries.

It seems we hear so much about religious people making statements concerning many of the hot button social issues of today's world. I see the clips on the television news or read about them in the paper. Whether or not I agree with some, all, or perhaps even none of these statements, is not what I'm here to talk about today. Maybe it's the fault of the news media, but I seldom, if ever, hear a word on the news from the religious community about a blight that's going on around us each day in our cities, towns and rural areas. I spell it with capital letters: G-R-E-E-D.

This is a condition from which all of us suffer to some extent, but when it comes down to it, it has never seen such heights in modern times as that which is emanating from the board rooms, money managers' offices, and the dens of the very wealthy in our society. The behavior we are witnessing is just plain ruthless, and unfortunately, it is extensive. We have very wealthy individuals hoping for hurricanes to disrupt oil and natural gas supplies. We have very wealthy individuals hoping for conflict in the Middle East for the same sick reason. Those who wish for any catastrophe for the sake of money!!! How despicable!!! No thoughts for their fellow man, only thoughts of more money and their chest-thumping ego trips!!! Let me tell you my brethren, there's not enough money in this world to satisfy these greedy, money-grubbing, ruthless individuals! They have a total disconnect with humanity. They have turned out the lights in their minds that lead to some pang of conscience.

And where are the ministers, priests, and rabbis to out and out condemn this behavior? My brethren, I'm afraid some, but not all, have fallen under the spell of the same curse. The wealthy contribute to the churches, and the very people who should be giving some moral guidance fall silent on this terrible affliction. Do they stand up and say that in a country like America, that people need medical care without the prospect of going bankrupt? No! Do they stand up and tell the board room class that they are ruthlessly cutting people from their employment rolls to save on medical insurance? No! Do they even ask their wealthy members to support some kind of national health insurance plan? No! Do they tell their wealthy members that after doing all sorts of rotten things to their fellow man, that making a donation to the church or hospital doesn't wipe the slate clean? No!

It is time for the religious community to stand up and point an accusing finger at the people who have so callously culled the ranks of working people from getting proper medical care! Further, I heard an interview with the President (then George W. Bush) recently. He was asked about the tremendous sums being paid to corporate executives, and what he felt should be done about it. He first noted that executive salaries should not be controlled by the government, but that corporate board members should be more diligent in watching pay levels. To me it sounds a bit like "Heal Thy self," or "the foxes put in charge of guarding the chicken coop." There's no doubt in my mind that workers deserve at least some of the huge sums being paid to the big wigs. I remember an episode from "Gilligan's Island," the 1960s sitcom. In this episode, if memory serves me right, an impostor is back on the mainland spending multimillionaire Mr. Howell's money. Mr. Howell, played by Jim Backus, blurts out, "Little does he know how hard other people worked to make me that money." That one line makes a great point.

So my brethren, I now will cool my rhetoric and offer a softer tone toward the people I want to reach. Please, please think about your actions! Turn on the light of conscience! Think of others, not just of yourselves! You will still have plenty! Think of how much you have and how little others have. Just think of the money you spent on yourself in the last few days. That amount alone could help save the life of someone without proper medical care. Or, that amount could save someone's home from foreclosure. Or that amount could save the emotional stability of someone struggling with financial problems due to layoff or a cutback in hours. Or that amount could feed a number of families who lack the wherewithal to keep food on the table. I could go on and on, but these are the things that should make you feel good, not just acquiring more wealth on top of more wealth, or watching your stocks rise because of some catastrophe, or gloating over some shrewd deal where you made a bundle, because you gave the other person "the business." Think! Think! Think! You can help cure, at least in part, this terrible affliction I spell G-R-E-E-D!!!

Do I hear an Amen?"

WORD HISTORY:
Wish-This verb goes back to Indo European "wen/wun," with the general meaning "to desire, to wish for." This gave its Old Germanic offshoot "wunsk(i)janan," with the same meaning. This gave Old English "wyscan" (notice the "n" sound is lacking), again with the same meaning. This then became "wisshen" (notice the "k" sound had become softened), before the modern form. The noun was derived from the verb by the late 1200s. The other Germanic languages have forms of the word (usually both a verb and a noun), and all with the same meaning as their English relative: (notice how in some of the other Germanic languages, the "k" sound softened, as in English, but the "n" persists, except in English and Icelandic) Old High German had "wunsken," but as happened in English, the "k" sound softened in the modern form, "wünschen"("Wunsch," is the noun form); Low German Saxon has the same forms as standard German; some Low German dialects have "wensche" ("Wensch," noun form); Frisian has only a noun form, "winsk" (here the hard "k" is retained); Dutch has "wensen" ("wens" is the noun); Danish and Norwegian have "ønske" (same form for the noun); Swedish has "önska" ("önskan"/noun); Icelandic has only the noun form, "Óska."