Charlie Chaplin Called Upon Humanity & Democracy

"The Great Dictator" was a movie produced, directed and written by Charlie Chaplin and filmed during the early months of World War Two. Chaplin also starred in the movie, his first major sound movie, which offered a satirical look at fascism, and thus, it had an anti-fascist message, the bluntest part of which came in a dramatic speech delivered by Chaplin near the end of the picture. Today, WE should not dare ignore Chaplin's words, lest we continue on this path to the destruction of democracy and of hope. America has long been a beacon of light to many around the world. We have NEVER been a perfect country. We have things for which we must atone. But in spite of our flaws, peoples of the world have looked in our direction for hope in the face of tragedies, persecution and tyranny, because the good news is, while we are often slow to respond to our failings and shortcomings, including that of horrendous racism, Americans gradually gather the courage to do that which terrifies pompous, self absorbed dictators; that is, we look at ourselves and we then try to correct the negatives we see. We reach for our ideals after periodic retreats into the perceived comfort of the past. 

Here is the link to both the video of Chaplin's speech from "The Great Dictator" and the text of that speech.

https://www.charliechaplin.com/en/articles/29-the-final-speech-from-the-great-dictator-

 Photo is of the Warner Home Video 2003 DVD

WORD HISTORY:
Atone-This is simply the combination of the words "at" and "one," two words from the Germanic roots of English, and with the idea being, "to come to one," with the further meaning of, "to come to one in agreement;" thus also, "to make amends for, to reconcile, to return things to a state of being whole" (it once could also convey a sense of "to repair"). The "one" part of the compound "atone" has kept the old pronunciation for "one." "Atone" seems to have started in the 1300s (mid?), but it didn't really become widespread in usage until the second half of the 1500s. For the history of the word "at," here is the link to the article with that "Word History:" https://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-third-man-one-of-greats.html
For the history of the word "one," here is the link to the article with that "Word History:" https://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-former-confederacy-modern-american_30.html

Keeper of the Flame: Tracy & Hepburn Fight Fascism

It's important to understand, while the film is set in 1941; that is, BEFORE the United States entered World War Two, the film was made in 1942, less than a year after the U.S. entered the war. The film takes on American fascism of those days, and while I find some of the story to be beyond the bounds of being believable, I wholeheartedly agree with its notion that fascists need to be exposed and opposed. The story in this picture is from the early 1940s, but it could just as easily be about today, because some Americans let down their guard and allowed themselves to be herded like sheep to the call of overt patriotism, phony religiosity and attempts to make the past sound better than what they could do to make the present and the future the shining example of our ideals.    

Cast:

Steven O'Malley ...........................................Spencer Tracy
Christine Forrest ........................................... Katharine Hepburn
Clive Kerndon .............................................. Richard Whorf
Mrs. Forrest .................................................. Margaret Wycherly
Geoffrey Midford ......................................... Forrest Tucker
Dr. Fielding .................................................. Frank Craven
Freddie Ridges ............................................. (Horace) Stephen McNally*
Orion Peabody (taxi driver) ......................... Percy Kilbride**
Jane Harding ................................................ Audrey Christie
Jeb Rickards ................................................. Darryl Hickman***
Mr. Arbuthnot ............................................... Donald Meek ****
Jason Rickards .............................................. Howard Da Silva
Piggot ............................................................ William Newell

The film opens with a dark stormy night in 1941 and a car plunging off of a partially collapsed wooden bridge. The driver killed in the car was Robert Forrest, a hero from the Allied Argonne Offensive in France in 1918 which had helped end the World War. Forrest is beloved and respected by many. Steven O'Malley, a journalist, has just returned from Europe where he had been covering the war (the film is set before the U.S. entered World War Two), and he plans to write a book about Forrest's life, as he admired Forrest greatly. While O'Malley watches Forrest's funeral procession, he meets a young boy, Jeb Rickards, who is visibly upset about Forrest's death, even telling O'Malley, "If it hadn't been for me, he'd be alive today." Inside the bar and lounge of the hotel, O'Malley tells some friends he wants to talk with Mrs. Forrest about her husband. A tall man at the bar, Geoffrey Midford, hears the comment and comes over to O'Malley and threatens to knock his head off if he bothers Mrs. Forrest. The hotel owner tells O'Malley that Midford is Mrs. Forrest's cousin. Then in comes Clive Kerndon, Mr. Forrest's private secretary, and while he is happy to see Steven O'Malley, he dodges a question by O'Malley about seeing Mrs. Forrest. When O'Malley takes a taxi to Mrs. Forrest's home, he chats with the taxi driver who says, "... there's always good and evil up against each other. A man's gotta take sides sooner or later. You'll know that one of these days, young fella." When O'Malley gets to the Forrest home, the gatekeeper, Jason Rickards, hobbles out and won't admit O'Malley through the gate, but the two men talk briefly, and Rickards says he was Forrest's captain in the war, and that Forrest got a medal for saving him when he was wounded, the reason he hobbles when he walks. Further, he tells O'Malley that he had been with Mr. Forrest ever since.

O'Malley hears crying a short distance away and it turns out to be the boy Jeb again. The boy is still terribly upset over Forrest's death, but O'Malley tells Jeb how he himself has cried about things he has seen in France and in Poland during the present war, and how there are people in Europe who are slaves, and that maybe Americans could be the next target. Jeb asks how that could happen and O'Malley explains that it is a big subject, but that generally, "they try to get us all confused and scared and sore at each other, and before you know it, they clamp the handcuffs on us." Jeb assumes O'Malley means that he could literally have chains put on him, but O'Malley explains he means the chains would be on his mind and tongue. O'Malley tells Jeb how they have to keep Mr. Forrest's memory alive to preserve the freedoms they have, and Jeb offers to help O'Malley get into the grounds and hopefully to see Forrest's wife, Christine. Once inside the enclosed property, O'Malley checks out the collapsed section of the bridge where Forrest plunged to his death inside his car. O'Malley enters the house and meets Mrs. Forrest, but she offers him no help in providing information about her husband's life. Clive Kerndon tells her she should invite O'Malley back; otherwise, he may think she is hiding something. As O'Malley exits the front gate, in comes Geoffrey Midford on a motorcycle. On the way back to the hotel, O'Malley and the taxi driver discuss Midford, with the taxi driver saying that Midford wasn't allowed inside the gates to the Forrest property when Forrest was alive. He also notes that Midford's own house is being repossessed and sold by the bank. Not long after O'Malley gets to the hotel, Christine Forrest comes calling and offers to help provide information about her husband. She and O'Malley agree to meet again the next day at her house. When O'Malley escorts her from the hotel to her waiting car, he finds that Geoffrey Midford is driving the car. Back inside, O'Malley finds out that the auction of Midford's house has been canceled due to the mortgage now having been paid.

The next day O'Malley stops to see Jeb and his father before going to his meeting with Mrs. Forrest. He uses the Rickard's telephone to call for Mrs. Forrest and a woman answers saying she is Mrs. Forrest, but Jeb tells McNally that she is "old Mrs. Forrest;" that is, Robert Forrest's mother, someone seemingly unknown to the public, in spite of her son's celebrity. O'Malley goes to see Christine Forrest, and Geoffrey Midford comes in again. It's easy to get the notion that Mr. Midford isn't Christine's cousin, unless it's a "kissing cousin," and I do mean "kissing cousin." O'Malley returns to his hotel where he sees a group of young people who've come to town to see Mrs. Forrest to express their sympathy for her husband's death. O'Malley hears the group tell another reporter how they came to belong to Mr. Forrest's organization, "Forward American," a movement Forrest subtly promoted during speeches and radio broadcasts by asking young people to write in to him, and then the letters were answered by Forrest's staff people. The next day O'Malley goes to see Christine again, but she has gone out of town; however, Forrest's private secretary, Clive Kerndon, proceeds to give O'Malley standard information about Robert Forrest, and he mentions that the "Forward American" organization has branches in almost every American town and village and that it represents "true Americanism" (hm, does that mean there's an "untrue Americanism?"). After providing photos, letters from young people and an album about Forrest's marriage, Kerndon is startled when O'Malley asks about Forrest's mother and tells him he'd like to speak with her. Kerndon says that would be impossible, because she is old and an invalid. Kerndon leaves the room and O'Malley sits back and thinks over the situation. Not long thereafter, O'Malley talks with the doctor who has been treating Jeb, who hasn't been feeling well. The doctor essentially tells him that Jeb is sick from hero worship of Robert Forrest and then Forrest's death, and that the boy's sister, who is several years older than Jeb, had had a nervous breakdown and was sent to a sanitarium by Mr. Forrest, and that she had been his secretary. When O'Malley asks if the girl was in love with Mr. Forrest, the doctor says, "No, you don't fall in love with a god, you just worship ... wear yourself out."

Later O'Malley sees Christine again and asks her about Robert's mother, but she simply says the same thing Mr. Kerndon had said. As they are being driven to Christine's home, O'Malley asks about an old building with no windows on the property and she says it was built in the 1700s as a fort, but that Robert used it to be alone and that it's called "the Arsenal." O'Malley asks if he can see inside the building and Christine says she'll have to find the key. When they get to the Forrest mansion, Mr. Kerndon privately mentions to Christine, that if she'd given him the key to the Arsenal, "I could have taken care of everything," but she says that she'll tell him when she has decided what to do. This brings Kerndon to say, "You'll tell ME?" (The intonation of his reply suggests that he's in the business of telling, not of being told.) Kerndon goes off to talk with O'Malley and Christine gets into a briefcase and takes out the key to the Arsenal and heads off for the building. She goes inside and begins gathering papers, photos, maps and letters, and she starts a fire with them in the fireplace. Meanwhile, Kerndon has been playing recordings of Robert Forrest's speeches for O'Malley, and he tells O'Malley how persuasive Forrest was with his audiences. He also mentions that his job is now almost finished with the Forrests, and he asks O'Malley if he knows of any job openings for a secretary. O'Malley suggests the name of some company, which brings Herndon to ask what that company does. O'Malley tells him the company is an advertising firm, "They manufacture 'rousing affirmatives;' for instance, if you wanted to create nice feelings in the minds of the public about someone, say Mrs. Forrest for example, (the firm) would plant little articles in the newspaper about what a helpful wife she was and so forth. Before long the public would give her a 'rousing affirmative.' " Herndon replies, "That's rather clever, isn't it?" But O'Malley says, "A little sad too. It's a pity how easily people can be fooled." (Note: The 'rousing affirmative' expression had been used by Herndon to O'Malley in an earlier meeting when Herndon showed him an album of photos and stories about the Forrests' marriage. When O'Malley remarks that the marriage must have been a good one, Herndon says that deserves "a rousing affirmative.") When O'Malley walks by the window, he sees smoke coming from the Arsenal's chimney and he tests Herndon by asking him about what the building is (Herndon cannot see the smoke coming from the chimney), and Herndon lies and says it hasn't been used for years, except as a storehouse. O'Malley excuses himself by saying he's going to take a stroll. This gets Herndon's attention and looks out the window and sees the smoke coming from the Arsenal's chimney. Herndon quickly calls long distance to New York and in a short conversation with a man we cannot see or hear (Herndon calls him 'sir'), he says that everything is being taken care of AND that he knows what has to be done and that NOTHING will stop him from doing his duty. (Damn, I think I smell a Nazi, but he didn't click his heels or say, 'Sieg heil.' Of course, maybe he hadn't seen Dorothy click her heels in the Wizard of Oz, and maybe he didn't shout 'Sieg heil' because he doesn't know German ... that must be it; after all, he's an American Nazi.)

Christine Forrest sees O'Malley coming towards the Arsenal, so she quickly goes outside and locks the door. She explains to O'Malley that she remembered there were some love letters from Robert to her that she wanted to destroy. As they walk off, we see Herndon hiding a can of gasoline nearby. Christine and O'Malley go to the stable where the doctor, who doubles as a veterinarian, has been treating Christine's horse, which had injured its hoof and leg when a horseshoe came off during the storm the night Mr. Forrest died. The two go out riding together and O'Malley throws out the possibility that the bridge may have been tampered with by someone to aid in its collapse, thus leading to her husband's death by a person who wanted him dead. Thunder rumbles and the two ride on near Robert's mother's house. O'Malley wants Christine to take him to meet her, but she won't do it, and she rides off. O'Malley goes to the house, where the butler tries to discourage him from trying to see Mrs. Forrest, but the old Mrs. Forrest calls to O'Malley to come to her room when the butler momentarily seeks out the housekeeper. The old lady tells O'Malley her son was murdered and that she wants O'Malley to write a play about him and that she'll help him. In comes Christine and Robert's mother says that her son said, "You are a very good actress," and she tells O'Malley that they should get Christine to act in their play. The old lady states her contempt for Christine and she begins to slide into a different world of rambling talk, and talking as if Robert were there. In the midst of this, she tells of Christine having been at the house the night Robert was killed, and that Christine had been told in a telephone call by someone to warn Robert about the bridge being out, but that she hadn't done so. Christine says the old woman is confused and that such a thing hadn't happened. Christine and O'Malley go outside and she hopes he won't report about Robert's mother's hatred for her and about his mother's mental condition. (Note: She doesn't say anything about the fact that Robert's mother has been held as a virtual prisoner in her home, rarely being able to see anyone.) O'Malley tells Christine he has an obligation to report the truth and that his readers are owed that. He says he is giving up doing the biography because he can't get at the truth and that she (Christine) has misled him all along the way. Christine gets on her horse and rides off alone. O'Malley rides to the bridge again and he finds the missing horseshoe from Christine's horse (she had earlier denied being near the bridge and thus having knowledge of the bridge being damaged).

O'Malley goes to the Forrest mansion, but before he gets there, Christine and Herndon have words about Herndon wanting the key to Forrest's filing cabinet in the Arsenal. He tells her she may not have burned all of the important papers. Now O'Malley arrives and Herndon leaves the room. O'Malley puts the horseshoe on the table in front of Christine and he tells her she killed her husband. She tells him Herndon was not involved, and when O'Malley includes Geoffrey Midford, she says he knew nothing of it. He asks her why she did it, but she sits silently, even when O'Malley says he'll have to write the truth, although she quickly says nothing will reflect on Robert Forrest's status as a hero and an inspiration to many. O'Malley walks out and Herndon returns to Christine's presence. He wants to go to the Arsenal and destroy any remaining papers, but she refuses and he tells Christine to go do it herself.

The scene shifts to the gatekeeper Rickards' house, where Geoffrey Midford and a woman arrive in a car. The woman turns out to be Rickards' daughter who had suffered a nervous breakdown. She and Midford are to be married, so one mystery, or I guess that's two mysteries, are solved (Midford is not romantically involved with Christine and we now know Rickards' daughter is alive and out of the sanitarium). The girl's father tells O'Malley he hated Robert Forrest because of the way his daughter and son (Jeb) became hero worshipers of Forrest. He also says it was actually Christine who got his daughter the treatment she needed and further, that is where Christine had disappeared to when she was suddenly gone for a few days (so I guess that's mystery number three solved). With this info, O'Malley takes Midford's car and heads back to find Christine (with no romantic involvement with Midford, that was then not her motive for letting her husband die). He sees Herndon along the road by the Arsenal and he tells O'Malley Christine is inside. O'Malley enters to find her burning more papers, and he asks her who she is shielding. He tells her he'll tear Robert Forrest down to find out the truth. This causes Christine to again leap to Robert's protection, but then O'Malley discloses in a roundabout way that he has affections for Christine and she admits that she's in trouble and needs him. She tells O'Malley he will be hurt by what she knows, because it will destroy his belief in someone. To put it quite bluntly, Christine explains that powerful moneyed interests had cultivated a glorious image of Robert Forrest, an image that many people, including herself, had been unable to resist, but she had come to realize there was a terrible purpose in the time taken to build Robert's public image, and she knew she had to destroy the person, but to preserve the image. O'Malley asks what the terrible purpose was and Christine continues that Robert began to change and that he despised and looked down on the people who worshiped him. She says, "I saw the face of fascism in my own home: hatred, arrogance, cruelty. I saw what German women were facing ..." She explains further that she stole Robert's key to his file cabinet at the Arsenal that contained documents about Forrest's American Forward organization, which she calls a "fascist organization," which naturally wasn't called "fascist," as they "painted it red, white and blue and called it Americanism." The cabinet also has funds contributed by wealthy people interested in political power, "who knew they could never get it (power) by democratic means." The files contain a list of these people's names. Christine pulls out a binder which she says contains "the essence of their plan," a series of articles to be released "to stir up all the little hatreds of the whole nation against each other." She reads off the targeted groups with attacks on Jews, Catholics, labor unions, city dwellers, Negroes (the 'proper' word in those times), plus "a subtle appeal to the Ku Klux Klan," and a list of people "who were designated to be America's first storm troopers." She says Robert "envied the dictators." Christine tells O'Malley that when she read these papers, she knew "Robert Forrest was a traitor to his country." She explains further that Robert was on his way to give instructions to saboteurs and that she knew he would use the bridge and she also knew the bridge was out and that he would die. O'Malley asks Christine to help him tell people about the real Robert Forrest. Her first reaction is, "And destroy people's belief in their hero?" O'Malley replies, "He wasn't their hero, he was their enemy, and they must know it. Christine protests further, "It will destroy them," but O'Malley says, "Christine, people aren't children. Sometimes they may act that way when they get scared and confused ... but they want the truth..." Christine tells O'Malley to do what he thinks is right. Suddenly smoke begins to cloud the Arsenal and we see Herndon locking the door from the oustide. This door is the only way out of the relatively small building. Herndon fires through the only small opening in the building with a pistol and hits Christine, who falls. Herndon flees, fearful that the shots will bring others to the building. O'Malley cradles Christine as she's dying and she says, "Write the story. Tell the truth." Meanwhile, Herndon uses his gun to knock out a man running with an ax toward the Arsenal, but also coming along the road in a car is Midford, the doctor, the gatekeeper Rickards and his daughter. Herndon stands and fires as the car approaches and the car strikes and kills him. The group takes the ax and gets the door open and carries O'Malley from the burning building to safety.

We next see O'Malley sitting at a typewriter writing his story, "The Truth About Robert Forrest," but we then see the accompanying story entitled, "She Died For Her Country," about Christine Forrest and then a picture of O'Malley's book about Christine's life. The film ends with barely visible American troops and the American flag going off to continue the fight against fascism.

* Horace McNally was his real name and it was used in the credits of this film, but he later used "Stephen McNally" as his stage name.

** A few years later, Percy Kilbride would become well known to many as "Pa" in the "Ma & Pa Kettle" films in the post-World War Two era.

*** Darryl Hickman and his brother Dwayne Hickman were pretty well known actors when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s.  

**** Donald Meek was a well known face from many movies, but not necessarily as well known by name. Even if you are a somewhat younger person, if you've watched films from made in the 1930s and the 1940s, you've likely seen Donald Meek.

Photo is of 2011 Warner Home Video DVD

WORD HISTORY:
Monitor-This word is related to a number of words, including, through Indo European, to "mind," a word from the Germanic roots of English, and to "mental," a Latin-derived word borrowed by English, and to "mentor," a Greek-derived word borrowed by English. "Monitor" goes back to Indo European "men," with the notion of "to think, to develop an idea or ideas," which produced the extended Indo European form "moneie," meaning, "to remind, to make or to cause to think of or about ( from: "The Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages," by Michiel de Vaan). This gave Italic "moneje," meaning, "to remind," and by extension, "to warn," which passed to Latin as "monere," meaning, "to warn, to remind, to advise (thus also, to teach)," and this produced the Latin noun "monitor," meaning "one who advises and warns." This was borrowed into English in the mid 1500s, initially meaning, "a student charged with overseeing other students," several additional meanings have developed since those times, including: "a device used to keep track of certain statistics," and that device, "may inform (warn) if a certain level increases or decreases beyond a desired point;" further, the name of the screen displaying such information, later also used for the device that displays computer information in graphic form for viewing; the name for a type of lizard (first half of the 1800s), "perhaps" because of its behavior when dangerous creatures were nearby, thus "warning" humans; the name for a type of ironclad naval vessel, "seemingly" because it was very low level with no masts and could 'monitor' or approach areas of harbors or rivers without being easily seen. The verb form "seems" to have first gained use in the early 1800s in the sense, "to advise, to guide," with "keep track of" added in the 1900s, initially about radio signal transmission, but then expanded to mean all sorts of things, including health related information: "monitor blood pressure," "monitor glucose," "monitor heart rate."  

Maligning Americans

This was first published May 1, 2013

The mother of the two Boston bombers has blamed the United States for everything about her sons. She has said the events were staged to frame her boys. Now I know mothers can be in denial about the actions of their kids, but the Tsarnaev family was taken into this country from Russia a decade ago and according to the latest reports, they received housing, food and educational assistance, seemingly totaling into the tens of thousands of dollars. The youngest son became an American citizen just last year and initial reports indicated he was given a hefty college scholarship amount. Now I'll admit, all of this is pretty hostile treatment at the hands of us Americans and many people, I'm sure, would love to be treated so harshly. In the last couple of years the mother seems to have gone from a westernized lifestyle, including clothing, to more traditional Muslim apparel, an act that is certainly not against the law, but which "might" suggest a turn toward fundamentalist religion, especially if reports about telephone conversations recorded by the Russian government between the older son and his mother are correct. The reports say there was much talk about religion and even jihad, a term used by extremist elements for "holy war." Again, discussing religion is not against the law, but all of this will have to be put into context over time, as more and more information comes to light. 
    
WORD HISTORY:
Should- This word, the past form of "shall," goes back to Indo European "skel," which had the notion of "be obliged to do something, owe." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skulan," which meant "to owe, be obligated;" thus also, "have guilt;" that is, "owe a debt for an illegal act." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sellan/sculan" (the "sc" pronounced like "sh"), with many of the same meanings, the present tense of which became "shall." The past tense was "scolde," which then later became "should." While "shall" lost much of its connection to the meanings "owe" and "obligation," as it came to be used for future tense, "should" has retained the notion of  "ought to, obliged to do." The meaning of "owe, guilty;" that is, "be indebted for a crime," was once prominent English, as the closely related English word "scyld" meant "guilt, debt, liability" and German still has the closely related "Schuld" for "debt, guilt."

Our Contentious System, Part One

You might think people in other parts of the world don't understand some of the aspects of our "American system" (other countries are similar, but not quite the same in all aspects). Actually, the people who often don't understand it are AMERICANS! We have a very contentious system. The point of some of this contentiousness isn't that a "winner," be it a person or an idea, is "right," but that the winner has prevailed after each, or all, sides have had their chance to present its case. I know some of this gets on our nerves at times, but the question becomes, how would you replace it? The other thing to remember is, our system is NOT perfect, in spite of the claims by super patriots, who seem so insecure as to never want to admit to the slightest flaw; but, no system yet put in place anywhere IS perfect. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and stop trying.

Look at the legal system. As the saying goes, "We all hate lawyers.....until WE need one!" One of the greatest television shows EVER, the original "Law and Order," showed the workings of the criminal justice system, with all its ah ... flaws? discrepancies? shortcomings? Give me a word here, PLEASE! In one of my favorite episodes, a woman is found dead in her apartment, but some blood from a relative is found there too. After much investigation, the police find out the blood belongs to a woman bank teller. She tells them the dead woman was her mother and that she spent time tracing who her mother was, after spending years in an orphanage. The mother, of very modest means, then told her the father had been a multimillionaire who recently passed away, leaving a fortune "to his children," the names of "his children" not being specified. The police arrest the teller for murder, and they bring in a bank officer who is the teller's boyfriend. Bank cameras showed the teller handing the bank officer a purse upon return from the mother's apartment. Police suspect the purse, not with the teller when she left the bank, contains a blouse covered with blood, as the teller had on a different blouse upon her return to the bank, a blouse several sizes too large for her, but the same size as her mother. After some tough questioning, the bank officer admits that he looked into the purse and that he did indeed see it had such a blouse in it. Meanwhile, down the hall, the police are questioning the woman who has her story down pat. After some tough questioning, she tells them she wants her lawyer. When they ask for a phone number, she tells them they have him down the hall. The boyfriend then tells the police he is the woman's attorney.

The show then shifted to the legal wrangling. The teller hires a criminal defense attorney who goes before a judge arguing that anything the boyfriend bank officer/lawyer told the police was protected by attorney client privilege. The guy had not paid his annual dues to the Bar Association for a few years, but the new attorney loans him the money to bring his dues up to date. The judge rules that as long as the accused woman believed the boyfriend to be her lawyer, that is what counts, and all of his admissions cannot be used against her. It turned out, the boyfriend had been representing the teller in pursuing a claim for part of the dead millionaire's estate.

Okay, what do we have here? "Attorney-client privilege" is an important part of our judicial system. We have a right to consult with an attorney, privately, and to keep those consultations private, under most circumstances.* An attorney of any type, not just a defense attorney, is supposed to defend their client's interest to the utmost. In criminal cases, the prosecution tries to their utmost to convict the person charged with a particular crime. In the television episode covered above, the judge knows the woman is likely guilty from the boyfriend's admissions, but because he had been representing the teller and because the client saw him as her attorney, the judge threw out the evidence. You may not like that evidence against an apparently guilty person is tossed, but that's how it works. We have protections and those protections were put into law to guard against the "state" from being able to do anything and everything to send someone to prison. Remember, there are still countries where whatever the "state" says, goes! Innocent though a person may be, they go to prison. Our system isn't perfect, and innocent people do get convicted, but it is fairly rare. The basic idea of our system is it is better to let a guilty person get off, than to convict an innocent person.

There is always public opinion in high profile cases, but even more importantly there are the feelings of the victim's survivors. In the above television case, what if you were the murdered woman's relative? Would you shout "Yippee! The Constitution works?" My guess is, no, you would likely be furious with the judge for tossing evidence against the apparent killer of your relative. That's just human nature. Depending upon the ultimate outcome of the trial, you "might" see the constitutional issue involved as time passed. In the above case, there is strong evidence to believe the woman is guilty, but let's say evidence tossed by a judge in another case were not as damning. Relatives of the victim are still likely to scream "Foul!" What if, in such a case, the person were truly not guilty? As victims, or relatives/friends of victims, we usually want revenge, and again, like it, not like it, that's a part of human nature. We want someone to pay for the crime. The judicial system is not supposed to be swayed by such things, but it is only supposed to be concerned with the law, no matter who it helps or hurts, but we all have feelings, and enforcement of our laws is certainly subject to those feelings. So under our system, some guilty people go free; probably far more than we'd like, while some innocent people pay a price; probably not many, but how about if YOU were going to prison for something you did not do? Would you be singing the praises of the law?

* There are exceptions, such as if someone else is present during consultations, or if the attorney is in any way connected to the crime being charged, or if the person charged waives his/her right to the privilege. What do these mean? As is always the case, these may seem simple, and they probably usually are, but they can become complex, as in the case I cited above from "Law and Order." These are just some simple examples: first, if I am present when you talk with your attorney, it is NOT private. I'm NOT your attorney; thus, I can repeat whatever was communicated during the conversation. Then again, how much do you want me to keep quiet? (Wink, wink) Second, if I were your attorney and you and I robbed the neighborhood bank, I'm part of the criminal act, communication is not privileged. Lastly, I get in front of a TV camera and tell all or part of what I talked about with my attorney in connection to the charges against me, then I forfeit my attorney-client privilege.

WORD HISTORY:
Client-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, although some believe the origins to be Indo European. It traces back to Latin "cluere," which meant "listen, hear, obey." From this came "cliens," which meant "a person who obeyed or followed someone." This gave the sense, "follow advice." The word was borrowed by English in the 1300s, but seems to have come into more common usage in the 1500s as "a patron/customer of an attorney," but that sense broadened shortly thereafter to "a customer, a patron, in general."

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War, Part Fourteen

This was first published in May 2012.


"The Battle Over Budgets" Part One/Overview

While technically the "Great Recession" ended a couple of years ago, the effects of the crisis continue to linger. In America, new home sales remain at low levels, thus keeping the home building industry, and its associated businesses, slow. Hiring has been relatively steady, but not robust, bringing down the unemployment rate at what seems an agonizingly slow pace, although it must be noted that government employment cuts at all levels have negated part of the gains in the private sector. Further, we can't forget that just as the economy turned the corner from severe downturn to the upside, the Gulf oil spill brought new economic problems, as well as a literal mess to the states along the coast there. Then Japan was rattled by a major earthquake, shaking not only that country, but bringing the economic jitters to many, especially the then recovering American auto industry. We have to remember folks, like it, not like it, nations, including America, are no longer just dependent upon their own economies and resources, they are all entangled to varying degrees of, well, "entanglement." If a major nation, or group of nations, sneezes, other nations catch cold too.

Further, the attempts to rein in the "casino-like" atmosphere of the banking industry has not been very successful, although higher reserve requirements mean banks have had to take money from other parts of their business to meet these requirements. Bankers undoubtedly argue that this reduces the number of loans they can make, thus limiting economic expansion, and there's certainly truth to that, but we can't have things both ways folks. This is what happens when we let things get out of hand, which is what happened. The banks went wild, the collapse came, and now we're trying to get the cat back into the bag, but it is a painful process. Attempts to regulate the banks more directly has essentially failed, as banks, along with largely, but not exclusively, Republican allies, fought tooth and nail to keep regulation as lax as possible. They succeeded, but common sense failed. The result has been a very recent new revelation that super bank J.P. Morgan Chase has suffered an admitted two billion dollar loss, which might actually be four billion (do I hear five? Six?), from risky investments.*

One of the effects of the "Great Recession" has been on government budgets. As I noted above, in the U.S., at the federal, state and local levels (including schools), contractions in revenue,** and rising costs for certain things, have brought great budget squeezes. Federal stimulus money helped some communities keep layoffs to a minimum, especially of police and fire personnel, but the money was really a one time, short term shot in the arm. Once it was gone, major decisions had to be made to keep budgets in balance, and many a worker lost their job. Meanwhile, similar has been happening elsewhere in the world, in particular in Europe.

* Okay, anti-regulation people argue that you can't have freedom if you have regulation. "Freedom," however, is in the eye of the beholder. In the 2000s, the banks went wild and laid their very solvency on the line in all sorts of risky investments, much of it based on an overheating mortgage business. The resulting collapse in 2008 brought America and the world to an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression. Quick action by many nations, including the U.S., even initially by the "free market" Bush administration, contained the damage, although the aftereffects are still with us. Banks are not just playing with their own money, they are playing with YOUR money, and with the nation's (and the world's) economic security. If you boarded a commercial airliner and the captain decided to start all sorts of risky maneuvers, I seriously doubt  you would say, "Oh that's okay, it's a free country, you can't tell the captain or the airlines how to fly their planes. Keep government regulation out of my air travel." Be careful in this election year when you hear politicians telling you they want to cut or eliminate regulation. You might just get on an airplane with a crazy captain.

** There has been a "double whammy," if you will, in that lower employment and business activity have naturally curtailed tax revenue, but also tax cuts, enacted at the national level and also at many state levels to promote growth, have taken a bite out of income. Less spending has meant less revenue from sales taxes. The dramatic decline in home prices has meant less money from property taxes.  

WORD HISTORY:
Budget-This word goes back to Indo European "bhelgh," which had the notion of "swell, inflate, bulge." This spawned a number of forms in Indo European's offspring, including Celtic, which had "bulgos/bolgos," meaning "stomach, bag," and this gave Gaulish "bulga(s)," with the same meanings. This then was borrowed into Latin as "bulga," which meant "leather bag, pouch." A leather pouch was used to hold money. Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as "bouge" (initially "boulge") also with the meaning "leather pouch/bag, often used for money." This later became "bougette," which meant "small pouch/bag." English borrowed the word from French initially as "bouget" in the early 1400s, and the word expanded in meaning beyond the actual pouch/bag, but also to its content. By the 1700s government finance people kept their financial plans in such a "pouch/bag," thus modern "budget." The verb form developed from the noun in the 1800s.

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War?

This was first published in late 2011.

Part One:
Protests and revolutions of various types have broken out in many parts of the world. In America, once in the forefront of revolution and change, reactionary forces have gotten a grip on the country, the likes of which hasn't been seen since before the Great Depression, and the way we're heading, it may date back into the post-Civil War era. When Barack Obama took office, mainly right wing elements mobilized in protests against many of his proposals, although he took certain aspects of these plans from Republicans (such as Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts), or he continued inherited plans from the George W. Bush administration (bank and auto company bailouts). The protesters often declared they feared a "socialist" takeover of the country, and they seemed to believe every problem facing the country began with Barack Obama, although he hadn't been in office very long. The group was the Tea Party, and they waved tea bags and held mass rallies across the nation, acting at times as if they were the only patriotic Americans around. They had and have every right to do so, although I truly believe many are terribly misguided in aspects of their protests (more on this later), although they have some points, too. Business groups and allied right wing organizations run television ads about every 20 minutes telling Americans to be against anyone who would dare to support raising taxes on the wealthy and oil interests to help reduce the budget deficit. They use distortion (not just a right wing tactic, but heavily so nowadays) to scare Americans into believing tax increases being floated are for everybody, and not just for the rich. The whole process smells....badly! The budget process smells badly, too, as I would say average Americans are overwhelmed by the numbers, and how those numbers are used: "Senator What's His Name wants to raise taxes by a trillion dollars!" The statement is true, but what is lacking is the context that the senator's plan is for ten years and he wants only high earners to pay the tax. Let's see... a trillion dollars divided by ten years is....don't tell me now, I can figure this out, but I need more fingers and toes. Darn! Okay, a hundred billion a year. Hell some of the greediest among us have made a bundle just in the time I've been typing this. All the while the assault on average Americans' living standards continues.

More recently, essentially left wing groups have gradually mobilized in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. They have camped out in parks and held rallies throughout the country protesting the tremendous, and growing, income disparity in America, and the takeover of the political system, and thus the economic and income distribution system, by the top 1% on the income scale (it's more than the top 1%, in my opinion). They have managed to focus attention on these problems, and while I believe them to be on the right track, there seems to be no true agenda to remedy the ills they are protesting. You can carry signs all day, every day, until hell freezes over, and camp out all you want, and it won't change the system, although you may come down with pneumonia; in fact, support for the protests may well have peaked, as outbreaks of violence in some locations have marred the image of the movement. If middle class Americans are afraid of the movement, it will NEVER fly. If it appears that the "I don't want them to make a nickle off of me," totally anti-business people are seen as being too influential a part of the movement, it will NEVER fly. Many unions have linked up with the group, but the original organizers (from what I understand) are leery of union leaders. My experience with unions and union people, and indeed most "unrich" Americans, is that they understand the need for businesses to make a profit. They are not against businesses making money, but they don't want to be gouged and they also want that money shared with workers in those businesses, and not just with independently wealthy investors and their money managers, the "sit on their ass class," as I call them.

WORD HISTORY:
Hoist-It "seems" this verb originated in Low German as nautical talk in reference to "hoisting;" that is, "raising," the sails of a ship (later also applied to raising a flag); the assumption by some is that it came from the sound made by the men exhaling while straining to raise the sails..."hissssss." The word spread through High German, and also into Dutch. English borrowed the word either from Low German or Dutch in the late 1400s as "hysse," then "hoise," and its past tense form, "hoised," came to be pronounced and spelled "hoist." The noun, meaning "a pulley," was derived from the verb. German and Low German have "hissen," Dutch has "hijsen," Danish has both "hisse" (borrowed from Low German "hissen") and "hejse" (borrowed from Dutch "hijsen"), Norwegian has "heise" (probably from Dutch) and Swedish has "hissa" (hoist/raise), probably from Low German. All of these languages interacted with one another in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea in trade and, at times, war. I could not find a form of the word in Frisian, which seems a bit odd, seeing that Low German and Dutch are geographically "right there" by Frisian, and the Frisians were seafarers, but it could have died out (let's face it, while not a totally obscure word in English, it's not exactly an every day word either). Also, I could not find a form in Icelandic, but "if" the word indeed originated in Low German, that is likely the reason... distance. It was borrowed into French and Italian, most likely from German, and even into Spanish, probably from Italian.

The German Question, Part One Hundred Forty-Six

"Hitler Rules Germany" Part Two/C
"Germany In World War Two" Part Two/F/3
"Germany Versus the Soviet Union" Part Three
"The German Tide Ebbs"

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (then a U.S. territory, not a state). President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress agreed to a declaration of war on Japan. Roosevelt had been trying to help Britain as much as possible, without getting the U.S. directly involved in the war, by sending material aid to the British. Before Pearl Harbor, the American public was split over possible American involvement in the war. Hitler solved the issue of American participation in the war against Germany by declaring war on the United States on December 11 at a session of the Reichstag. Always the racist, Hitler didn't seem to realize that he was bringing a formidable foe into the war against him. Various statements indicated he believed Americans could not fight well, because they were such a mixture of ethnic and racial groups. Such nonsense helped to hasten his demise. Mussolini followed suit with a declaration of war by Italy on the United States. It wasn't long before heavily armed convoys were transporting American troops and war equipment to Britain.

In North Africa, Rommel's German and Italian forces faced a new British commander, Bernard Montgomery, and "Monty" launched a major offensive against Rommel in late October 1942, in what became the last part of the El Alamein battle. After terrible losses of men and equipment, and in spite of Hitler's order to hold his positions, Rommel ordered a retreat. Thousands of Axis prisoners were taken by the Allies. Meanwhile, the Americans and British forces landed troops in the French North African colonies of French Morocco and Algeria, which were behind Rommel's retreating army. Hitler and Mussolini rushed troops to Tunisia, another French colony sandwiched between Rommel's retreating forces in Libya and the Allied forces which had just landed. French resistance to the landings was relatively light, and the struggle then centered on Tunisia. While Rommel inflicted a punishing defeat on the Americans at a place called "Kasserine Pass" in February 1943, the German and Italian forces surrendered in May 1943. This now left Italy vulnerable to attack.

In the Soviet Union, Hitler's stalled capture of Stalingrad gave the Soviets time to gather fresh troops north and south of the city. In mid November 1942 they struck, breaking through primarily overwhelmed Rumanian lines and trapping a large German, and a smaller Rumanian force, in and around Stalingrad. By early February 1943, the remaining encircled forces surrendered to the Soviets. During the overall Soviet operations that winter, the whole southern sector of the Axis front was pummeled, and a Hungarian army and an Italian army, besides two Rumanian armies and a German army were essentially destroyed. The Germans did not stabilize the front until February/March 1943, but they had lost virtually all of their gains from the previous summer. Although there would still be much intense fighting, Hitler's days were numbered.

WORD HISTORY:
Ebb-This word, closely related to "off," goes back to Indo European "apo," which meant "off, away (from)." This gave Old Germanic "ab," with the same meaning, and from that Old Germanic developed "abjon," with the meaning "tide flowing away, tide flowing 'off' from shore;" thus, "low tide." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ebba," which later dropped the ending "a." The figurative use to mean "decline of someone or something" was already in use in the 1300s. There are various forms present in the other Germanic languages: German has "Ebbe," Low German Saxon has "Ebben," West Frisian has "ebbe," Dutch "eb," Icelandic has "ebbið" (=ebbith), Swedish has "ebb," Norwegian has "ebbe" and Danish has "ebbe." Some of the Germanic languages still retain a verb form, English being one of those, and in Old English it was "ebbian." Dutch has "ebben."

The German Question, Part One Hundred

"Germany's Weimar Republic" Part Three
"The Occupation Of The Ruhr"

(Just for some background, this paragraph and the note is from Part 99) "The Versailles Treaty made Germany responsible for reparations mainly to Belgium and France. When the Germans defaulted on some aspects (mainly timber and coal) of these payments, French and Belgian troops entered Germany in January of 1923 and occupied the Ruhr, the country's main industrial region.*"

Not only were the French concerned about losing the resources from the German reparations, but they feared that if Germany could not be made to comply with this aspect of the Versailles Treaty, the Germans would gradually get out from under other provisions of the treaty. They saw enforcement as imperative. The Germans called for strikes by workers in the Ruhr; thus beginning months of popular resistance to the occupation. Some German workers and organizers of the resistance were killed or arrested,** which only gained Germany sympathy from other parts of the world. The strikes had the further consequence of damaging the frail German economy, as production of many goods used for both domestic consumption and for foreign trade essentially came to a standstill. Escalating German inflation, already on the rise before the occupation, exploded, as the German government, in an effort to meet its obligations, printed money with little or no backing to give it value. While the German currency lost value, so did the value of French money, as without German reparations, other nations feared for the resilience of the French economy.

World War One and its aftermath really began American involvement in European affairs. Influential American leaders and businessmen wanted a stable Europe, including a stable Germany. This very much coincided with Britain's desires. With the tension of the Ruhr occupation escalating, a committee was set up consisting of two members each from France, Belgium, Italy, Britain and the United States. The committee, called the "Dawes Committee," after American Vice President Charles Dawes,*** devised a plan to restructure German reparations in an attempt to assure payment. America provided loans to Germany to help their economy recover and to help guarantee payment of reparations. Germany would collect various taxes to make the payments. The "Dawes Plan," as it was known, established a lowered payment plan for Germany, but with progressively higher payments over a five year period, with the maximum to be reached and continued in year five. In return, the French and Belgians would withdraw from the Ruhr industrial region of Germany (which took place in August of 1925). The Germans signed on the dotted line and Dawes received a shared "Nobel Peace Prize."****

Next: ""The Cost of a Loaf of Bread-Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany" (A "Word History" is below the notes)

* (From Part 99) "The German government claimed it could not meet all reparations. The Belgians and French argued that the Germans were simply playing games to see if the Allies would enforce the reparations' provisions of the treaty. The British and Americans wanted the amount of reparations to be lowered, which only irritated the French that much more."

** It certainly seems that more than a hundred Germans were killed during the occupation, but an exact number is difficult to determine.

*** Dawes, a Republican who was born in Ohio, came from a banking and financial background. He held financial positions in the former administrations of President McKinley and President Harding, both Republicans.

**** The other recipient, British Foreign Secretary, Austen Chamberlain, shared the award because of his work on a series of European treaties (collectively known as "Locarno Treaty" or "Pact"), but he had nothing to do with the Dawes Plan.

WORD HISTORY:
Republic/Public-The main part of this compound goes back to Latin "publicus/poplicus," meaning "about the people." Where Latin got the word is a matter of discussion, with some linguists believing it was a borrowing from Etruscan (see note). The first part goes back to Latin "res," which meant "matter, thing." Some linguists believe this traces back to an Indo European root "re" or "rei," others are not so certain. Regardless, Latin had "respublica," meaning "matter of the people." This gave French, a Latin-based language, "république." It seems to have been borrowed into English at some point during the 1600s. The word "public" was borrowed into English in the 1400s from French "public," which traces back to the Latin forms given above. Other Germanic languages also borrowed the word: German has "Republik" (capital "R," as all German nouns are capitalized), Dutch and Low German have "republiek," West Frisian has "republyk," Norwegian has "republikk," Swedish has "republik," and Danish has "Republik."

NOTE: Etruscan is something of a mystery language, but it was possibly related to some languages of the Aegean Sea area, including "Minoan." Etruscan was spoken in a fairly large part of what is now Italy, but it died out when Latin came to the area, although some of its words were borrowed into Latin.

The German Question, Part Seventy-Six

"Kaiser Wilhelm & World War I" Part Two/F "The Germans At War"
"A New Enemy & A Peace Treaty"

Both Britain and Germany relied heavily upon foreign trade to maintain their war industries and food supplies. When war broke out, the highly regarded British Royal Navy imposed a naval blockade of Germany, declaring all sorts of items as "contraband," including food products. Vessels of neutral foreign countries were boarded and searched for any items listed as contraband. The Royal Navy mined a large area along the route needed for ships to reach German harbors. There were protests about this policy from various countries, including the United States, as many American companies were dependent upon trade deals with Germany. The Germans protested that Britain was trying to starve the German civilian population into surrender, which was true. There were international agreements spanning decades, and even a couple of centuries, that were certainly being tested by the tight British blockade.*

The Germans, partially in a "tit-for-tat" policy, partially for military strategy, tried to blockade Britain, more so by using submarines ("U-Boats") and "raiders." The British policy was highly successful in restricting goods flowing into Germany. The German policy was never as successful, and in the end, worked against Germany, as the U-Boats sank all sorts of ships, the passenger liner "Lusitania" being the most famous, in 1915, with many Americans aboard, which only served to inflame American public opinion against Germany. President Woodrow Wilson demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships, and the Germans agreed... for awhile. The Germans suspected that America was supplying Britain with war goods by putting such goods on passenger ships. The Germans declared the resumption of attacks on any ships heading for Britain (early 1917).** Further, explosions at American munitions factories were thought to be sabotage by the Germans.*** The German leaders were convinced that America would enter the war against Germany because of the announcement of "unrestricted submarine warfare" by Germany. This prompted the German leaders to try to get Mexico (unsuccessfully) into the war against America by offering the Mexicans American lands previously part of Mexico, like Texas. The communication was intercepted by the British who later gleefully (who can blame them?) passed on the info to the American government.**** The content of the message was given to the newspapers and radio, thus fueling more anti-German sentiment.^ Then more Americans died in the sinking of British passenger ships as a result of the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, and President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, which came on April 6, 1917. Germany had a new foe.

Meanwhile in Switzerland, Vladimir Lenin and the German embassy made arrangements for Lenin to return to Russia. The Germans believed that Lenin would stir more public feelings against the "Provisional Government" of Alexander Kerensky, and that could only be good for Germany, as it might even take Russia out of the war. Lenin, on the other hand, felt that the revolution that deposed the Tsar was only the first stage of a larger revolution that could possibly bring him and the Bolsheviks to power, and even spread to other European countries. Public unhappiness with the Kerensky government, the continued war, and the control of much of the capital by workers and pro-worker soldiers, brought the Bolsheviks to power in a relatively mild revolution (November 1917).^^ It would take them several years to get true control of the entire country, and in the meantime, civil war broke out. With the Bolshevik government clinging to power and fighting pro-monarchist and other elements of Russian society, the Bolsheviks moved to secure peace with Germany to be able to concentrate their efforts on securing total power. On March 3, 1918, the Central Powers and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (say that three times real fast!) signed a peace treaty. For the first time since early in the war, a German and Central Powers' victory became a possibility. The trains began rolling westward from Russia carrying German troops to the Western Front and carrying Austro-Hungarian troops to the Italian Front. (A Word History is below the notes)

* The attempts by humans to rein in warfare practices are very deep. Let me put it this way; if country "A" is at war with country "B," does that make neutral country "C" fair game if it tries to trade with either, or both, A and B? How about if country "C" is supplying a vital resource, like oil, for example, to an enemy country? Is a policy of trying to starve civilians of enemy countries right? Some argue, if you are a civilian in a country at war, then making you as "uncomfortable" as possible is a part of war, as your discomfort will make you put pressure on your government to make peace. To be honest, countries (in a collective sense), just as individuals, tend to drift back and forth on questions, depending upon the "self interest" of the moment. I know that sounds cynical, but that's just how we humans are.

** The policy was termed "unrestricted submarine warfare."

*** To my knowledge, conclusive evidence was uncovered in some, but not all, cases, although in those cases a good deal of circumstantial evidence was pieced together. Interestingly, one of the "German" saboteurs had been, not in the German army, but in the Austro-Hungarian army. Here we come back to that connection between Germany and Austria. The circumstantial evidence does seem to indicate sabotage, but whether instigated by Germany or Austria-Hungary (or both!), I don't know.

**** Very briefly here, the British had cut German trans-Atlantic cables, so that Germany had to use American cables to contact its diplomatic personnel in North America. British intelligence "tapped" the American cable and intercepted the message. The British, unknown to the Germans, also had broken much of the German code used to transmit messages. This all provided the British with a dilemma; if they told the American government about the intercepted message, they would be admitting that they had tapped American cables, and once the Americans announced that, the Germans would know that their code had been broken. The problems were solved by bribing a Mexican official for the message, and by declaring that they had stolen a decoded text from the Mexicans, which of course, was untrue.

^ On the other hand, some German-Americans and many Irish-Americans were more pro-German, and anti-British in sentiment.

^^ Russians call it the "October Revolution," due to Russia using the old style "Julian" calendar back then.

WORD HISTORY:
Hamburger-Give me the name of any American over about two years old who doesn't know this word! The word apparently was borrowed into American English (in England too?) from German, perhaps in the late 1700s, initially as the term "Hamburg steak," either from German immigrants or from American (English?) sailors who had visited Hamburg, Germany, a major port. It seems to have meant some type of finely chopped meat, but details are sketchy. Hamburg, the city, was founded by "Karl der Grosse" ("Karl" or "Charles the Great"), known in English as "Charlemagne" (the French rendering of his name), who had a fortress built in the area in 808 A.D. The fortress or castle, a "burg" in German, was called "Hammaburg," but no one seems to know just why, although the modern German city of "Hamm" (somewhat southwest of Hamburg) supposedly derives its name from the old Low German word "ham," which meant "corner, bent" and would seem to be related to English "ham," the meat, as the "ham" was from the part of leg behind the knee; that is, the part that "angles, bends." Another possibility for both Hamm and Hamburg is the old relative of modern English "home" and modern German "Heim." I want to emphasize, these are only possibilities, however.