$70,000... Talk About A Minimum Wage!

Most, if not all, of you have undoubtedly heard about Dan Price, the Seattle CEO and founder of "Gravity Payments," reducing his own million dollar salary to that of his employees, whose salaries will be $70,000, a substantial increase in pay for most of them. It will be interesting to see how this develops, but we need to give credit to this man for what he has done, and for the discussion it should prompt around the country. I saw some negative reaction to Price's actions, but I really did not note the sources, but my guess would be the negative reactions came from three sources: other CEOs or business people, or their allies on the political right, like the free marketers, who are against the very concept; those middle and lower income employees who are envious of Price's employees, and lastly, those on the political left, probably more so the far left, who seem to find fault with just about anything. To this last group, assuming I am correct that there are some on the political left who dislike Price's actions, please don't find or invent a reason to dislike or hate Dan Price, with comments like, "well he didn't do it last year," or "he didn't smile enough when he announced it." PLEASE, when someone comes to your side of an issue, or even damned close to your side, ACCEPT IT! Don't beat up on them for supporting YOUR basic position!

WORD HISTORY:
Spew-This word, related to "spit,"^ goes back to Indo European "spyu," which meant "to spit, to discharge fluid from the mouth." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "spiwanan," with the same meaning. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "spiwan," which then became "spewen," before the modern version. The noun form developed from the verb in the late 1500s or early 1600s. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "speien," Low German Saxon has "speen," Dutch has "spuwen," West Frisian (still has?) "spije," Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all have "spy," and Icelandic has "spýta." 

^ The word with the same modern spelling, "spit," but meaning "a pointed stick used for roasting meat," is not related, as it is from a different source. 

How Does Your Income Compare?

I first published this in early 2007, but it is even more relevant now, as this was BEFORE the economic meltdown. Updated to include a "Word History" on November 29, 2014. I also simply added a paragraph, almost intact, from another article from back then, as it fit perfectly with this subject. At that time George W. Bush was President. 

A couple of things caught my attention regarding recent reports on income in America. First, the CEO of Home Depot is leaving. He is getting a severance package worth 210 million dollars!!! From my understanding, he's being given the boot for the company NOT doing as well under his leadership. What would he have gotten if he had left the company having done a GOOD job?

Then, on the radio, I heard this info, but I don't believe a source was cited:
The average pay of an American CEO of a company with at least a billion dollars a year in sales is about $44,000 per day (rounded off ... thank God!). The average pay for American workers is around $35,000 per year. Please draw your own conclusions.

President George W. Bush recently said in an interview that corporate boards need to be more vigilant in oversight of CEO pay and benefits. The reaction has been that last week, one Wall Street company paid it's CEO $40 million (as Jethro Bodine, of the Beverly Hillbillies would say, "That's 40 comma... naught... naught... naught...comma...naught...naught...naught"). As if to further prove a point, this week, another Wall Street company paid it's CEO more than $50 million. I'm glad these companies have followed the President's advice. (Generally gleaned from CNBC, December 2006)

WORD HISTORY:
Ween-This is NOT the same word as "wean," which means, "to get used to, get accustomed to, to gradually become independent of," but they are distantly related from long ago. English has a noun and verb form of this word, although both have unfortunately become archaic, but you never know when words may make a comeback, or when you may encounter old forms in poetry or old writings. "Ween" goes back to Indo European "wen," which had the notion of "to wish, to desire, to strive for, to expect." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wenjanan," which had the meanings "to hope, to imagine, to expect." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wenan," with the same general meanings, but also with the notion behind these meanings of "to believe unrealistically, have unreal expectations." This then became "wenen," before "ween" became the standard form. Old Germanic also had the noun form "wenaz," which meant "an expectation, a hope." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wena/wen," with the same meanings, but also "incorrect expectation, false hope." This then became "wene," before "ween" became the standard. Forms of "ween" in the other Germanic languages have suffered a decline in usage too, except: German has the verb "wähnen" (to falsely imagine) in limited use, and the much more common noun "Wahn" (delusion, mania), Dutch has the limited use verb "wanen" (to falsely imagine) and the noun "waan" (delusion). Low German Saxon has "wahn," an adverb meaning "angry," which goes to a state of mind, too.    

The Way THESE Waltons Say, 'Good Night'

First published in October 2014

During the 1970s, there was a popular television series on CBS called "The Waltons," about a family in rural Virginia set during the 1930s and early 1940s. The show became sort of famous for its ending, when the family members said "good night" to one another; a rather involved process, which drew the attention of some comedians for their own acts. The other famous Waltons are those who own about half of the stock of the discount retail store chain, "Walmart," and who control the corporation headquartered in Arkansas. Walmart is the largest employer in the United States with 1.3 million employees and the Walton family, just six members of one family, controls wealth equal to the combined wealth of the bottom 41% to 42% of Americans.* Walmart has been heavily criticized for paying generally low wages and for the outsourcing of production to very low wage countries, where labor laws are scant, if in existence at all, including the use of child labor. So with all of this in mind, I thought I'd do a little satire on "How THESE Waltons Say, 'Good night.' "

Walton Jim:: "Good night Walton Rob. You be sure to keep those unions from organizing any of the workers and stirrin' up any trouble, like askin' for more money. I mean, is it our fault these people can't get by on 9 bucks and hour? Gee, most of 'em get food stamps from the government, the moochers. Here we are payin' these folks 9 dollars an hour, and we can't even get another tax cut. I'm tellin' ya, life's just not fair."

Walton Rob: "Good night Walton Alice! You keep pluggin' to get us some tax cuts like Jim just mentioned. These tightwads take all the fun out everything."

Walton Alice: "Okay, will do. Good night Walton Ann! You keep in touch with Jim and Rob about fightin' any increase in the minimum wage. These people act like they deserve more money. And we're not going that more medical benefits route either. What do these people want from us, anyway? Hey, you get sick, take care of yourself and get to work anyhow. If you don't want to work, there are others out there who'll take our 9 bucks an hour. Ah, maybe we could just offer $8.50?"

Walton Ann: "You guys are just great! Good night Walton Nancy! You keep your eyes on Jim and Rob so that they keep getting the cheapest products regardless of the country or the exploitation of people. It's always the bottom line that counts. Just what are sweatshops, anyhow? Good night Jim, Rob, Alice and Ann! Sweet dreams! Just remember, everybody do your jobs like we just talked about and when we wake up, we'll be worth a bundle more than when we went to sleep."

* See: Politifact Wisconsin, December 8, 2013 for employment and wealth figures, as well as for Walton family stock holdings in the retail store chain. See also: "Inequality, Exhibit A; Walmart and the Wealth of American Families," by Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute, July 17, 2012.

WORD HISTORY:
Cheap-This word's ultimate origin is unknown, but it goes back to the Latin noun "caupo," which meant "innkeeper, tradesman," and Latin verb form, "perhaps," "cauponare," meaning to "engage in commerce or trade." These seem to have been borrowed by the Germanic tribes which came into contact (and conflict) with the Romans along the Rhine River more than 2000 years ago. They then spread to other Germanic tribes. This gave Old Germanic the noun "kaupa," with the same borrowed Latin meaning, but also a verb form, "kaupan," generally meaning "to buy."  This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the noun "ceap," which meant "a purchase, a business deal, commerce;" as well as, the verb "ceapian," meaning "to engage in business or trade," and by extension, "to bargain." The noun gave English the profession "chapman;" that is, "a merchant, a tradesman," which later became a family name, "Chapman" (close relative German has the closely related "Kauf(f)mann," meaning "merchant, salesman," a name sometimes rendered as "Coffman," in English). The noun form died out in English, as "purchase" was borrowed from French, and English already had its own Germanic word, the word which became modern "buy" (usually a verb, but also a noun, as in, "That's a good buy," but exactly when the noun use developed is unclear to me). The verb form "ceapian" later became "cheapen," meaning "to lower the price," and the figurative "to make something less in value," a form still used today, although the "en" ending on most English verbs was gradually done away with a few hundred years ago, requiring English speakers to express the infinitive form with a preceding "to," plus the shortened verb form. The adjective, which is the most commonly used form today, developed from the notion "to bargain;" thus, the adjective meaning, "the best price or deal," but also the less flattering, "not of high quality, skimpy." The other Germanic languages have: German "kaufen" (to buy) and "Kauf" (a purchase), Low German Saxon "kopen" (to buy), West Frisian "keap" ^ (a purchase, something acquired) and "keapje" (to buy, to acquire), Dutch "koop" (a purchase) and "kopen" (to buy), Danish "køb" (a purchase) and "købe" (to buy), Norwegian "kjøp" (a purchase) and "kjøpe" (to buy), Icelandic "kaup" (a purchase) and "kaupa" (to buy), Swedish "köp(et)" (a purchase) and "köpa" (to buy).

^ Notice the closeness to the Old English form "ceap." The Frisians are closely related to the English, as some Frisians joined with the closely related Angles and Saxons in the invasion of Britain and in the establishment of England.

How Much Is Too Much Money?

Way back in the 1960s, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart issued a statement about a case involving alleged pornography by saying that he couldn't define "hard core pornography," but, "I know it when I see it." To me it's similar about money and wealth, I can't say exactly how much is too much, but I know it when I see ... certain things, like: individuals or families spending millions, even tens or hundreds of millions, on political campaigns to get candidates or issues favorable to their point of view, which seems often to have to do with them making ... more money. These aren't people who are happy to be wealthy, these are people with sick egos. Then there is Ken Langone, the founder of Home Depot and a Catholic, who is worth at least two billion (obviously the poor guy is hurting), who criticized Pope Francis for his outspoken remarks about capitalism, great wealth and income disparity. Langone said Pope Francis doesn't comprehend the rich and that he is aware of one wealthy donor to Catholic causes who is so angry with the pope, he may not go forward with a large donation to help renovate St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City (this was as of late 2013, and I do not know the end result of the blackmail ... ah, I mean the donation). I'd say it is Langone and his friends who really don't comprehend the issue, not Pope Francis. I'd advise the pope to PUBLICLY take on Langone and Company. Who do you think will win? We would then find out how people who call themselves Catholics really come down on this issue, since Christianity is NOT about giving money to rich people, or seeing to it that they get more, but it is really about helping ALL people, when they need it.

Just for some balance, here is a link to one of my other articles: "Not All Wealthy People Are The Same":

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/09/not-all-wealthy-people-are-same.html

WORD HISTORY:
Eight-This word for the numerical value between 7 and 9 goes back to Indo European "okto," which meant "eight." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "akhto," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "eahta." This then became "ahte" and "aught," depending upon dialect, before the modern version, although the "gh" was pronounced back then, and the spelling never changed to reflect the change in modern pronunciation.^ The other Germanic languages have: German, Low German, Dutch and West Frisian "acht," Norwegian åtte, Danish "otte," Icelandic átta, and Swedish åtta

^  The Old English form likely had emphasis on the "h," which then produced the later spelling with "gh."

"What If I Can't Make A Gazillion," Is Not The Important Question

"What if I can't make a gazillion," is not the important question. The far more important question for most people is, "What if I can't make enough to support myself or my family?" Let's stop worrying about trying to soothe the insatiable egos of millionaires and billionaires and focus on the rest of society. The super wealthy won't miss one meal or be forced to sleep under a bridge or in an alley or in substandard housing, or forgo medicine or medical treatment, or plastic surgery, or hair implants, or a trip to Paris to sample the latest French wine. They'll be just fine, except for their insatiable egos, which will be just as insatiable, even if they make a gazillion ... or two ... or ten. They are NOT a poor, oppressed minority.

WORD HISTORY:
Corn-English has a couple of words "corn," but this is the noun meaning "grain." It is related to "kernel," and it goes back to the Indo European root "ger," which had the notion, "wear down;" thus also, "to mature," which produced "gerhanom," which meant "grain;" that is, "a larger grown object 'worn down by maturity.' " This gave Old Germanic "kurnan/kurnam," meaning "a small seed from a plant." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "corn," where it has remained for centuries and centuries, and which meant "grain." The discovery of the New World and the native plant "maize," a term picked up by Spanish from the Caribbean Islands, came to be applied to the plant itself, from the idea of the kernels being "corn;" that is, "grains," but that more exclusive, specific meaning remains largely North American English, although this is certainly understood and used in other English speaking areas, including in England itself, where the dual meanings exist. The other Germanic languages have: German "Korn" (grain),^ Low German "Koorn" (grain, see German note below), Dutch "koren" (grain, maize^^), Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish all have "korn" (grain), with varying degrees as to the frequency of usage. Frisian no longer uses a form of the word, although it had "korn."

^ The German noun "Korn," meaning "grain," is grammatically neuter; thus "das Korn," but German also has the grammatically masculine form, "der Korn," which is a type of schnapps made from grain, which in the Low German of the northern part of Germany is "Koorn."

^^ The Dutch were once involved in the New World for a time. Whether they picked up the maize=corn meaning then, or borrowed it from English, I'm not sure.

The Time Warner Cable-Comcast Merger

There's a good chance you are a customer of one of these huge corporations, either Time Warner Cable or Comcast. I am. I received an email from that company and before I even opened it, I set out what I figured was in it: "This merger is for our customers, it will benefit you, blah, blah, blah." Remember folks, everything in American business is about selling something, legit or not, including how terribly concerned super wealthy CEOs, other executives and big stockholders are about you, their customers. Let me tell you this folks, this merger, if approved, is about ONE THING and only ONE THING, MONEY! Money for some of the wealthiest people in the country and in the world. It is not about ANYTHING ELSE. "If," and I seriously doubt this will result, it truly benefits the rest of us in any way, that will be pure coincidence. Time Warner Cable was once part of Time Warner, but it has been independent for a few years. Comcast, the largest media company in the world, as well as the largest cable provider in the U.S., owns NBC/Universal.*

Both Comcast (its cable, internet and phone services) and Time Warner Cable (it also has cable, internet, and phone services) have poor customer service ratings from consumers. Cable companies have been raising prices for years, much to the anger of their customers, and if this merger is approved, with more concentration in that industry, watch out! "We have to raise prices, because we're working on new innovations and ...." The thing is, the owners don't want to pay for any of this, they want you to pay, with extra profits tacked on for them, just to make things worth their while. Nope, no "just the cost of doing business" for these greedy bastards. You know, they won't do anything without being able to make enough money to circle the globe at least twice with hundred dollar bills, but you're supposed to work for less, and don't go complaining about it either, you moocher! Remember too, when you hear the term, "corporate profit," that likely has little to do with you, except how the execs are holding down your wages and/or benefits, but it has loads to do with how much more the wealthy are raking in, further adding to the concentration of wealth with the top earners.

A few years ago, the banking fee, by Bank America, if I remember correctly, was stopped because Americans finally took action. Wealthy interests and corporations have taken over our country. To get it back and to get some balance restored will require action, not just complaining to one another. The big money people count on us taking no action. They know people complain and that many Americans hate their guts, but they also count on Americans whining and bellyaching, but in the end, that we will sit on our asses and do nothing, which is what happens in the overwhelming number of cases. What will we do in the case of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger?

* NBC/Universal owns: NBC, NBCSN (NBC Sports Network), the Golf Channel, Telemundo, "E" (Entertainment Television), USA Network, Syfy Channel, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo Channel, the Weather Channel, Universal Pictures, numerous theme parks in the U.S. and overseas, and several other entities.

WORD HISTORY:
Merge-This goes back to Indo European "mezg," which had the notion of "dip, place in water, dive." This gave Latin "mergere," as the "r" sound replaced the "z," in a process called "rhotacism." The general meaning, however, remained the same. English borrowed the word from Latin in the first half of the 1600s and its meaning gradually changed to "to join, to combine," perhaps from the notion of "joining an object in liquid." The derived "submerge" retains the original meaning of "dip, dive, plunge."

The Ship That Sailed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Income Gap Staggering And Frightening

 Below is the link to a story carried on "NBC Nightly News" on Monday, January 20, 2014. (Unfortunately, the link has expired, but the basic point is covered here.) I've talked about income disparity here many times over the years and this story only goes to prove that the situation is dire and may just be a powder keg waiting for a lit match. The world's 85 richest people have more wealth than the three and a half billion poorest people. While the article mentions "societal breakdown," it fails to specifically mention the serious danger to the wealthy themselves, because, in my opinion, if and when that match touches the powder keg, they are likely to lose their heads, literally, as revolutionaries lose their heads, figuratively. With the instantaneous communication and fast travel of today, the upheaval will likely spread worldwide. At present there doesn't seem to be a political figure on the political right anywhere in sight who has the sense, or the desire, to try to lessen the growing income gap, and thus lessen the tensions.* A few very wealthy American individuals, like Warren Buffett, have spoken out about the growing inequality, but no one has really stepped forward to lead a movement to challenge the fascistic egomaniacs of the extreme right, and Buffett is well into his 80s. Any Democrat will be lambasted as a "socialist," or worse, as we've seen happen with Barack Obama, a man left of center, but generally only modestly so.

This is the link to the article, which is not all that long: 

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/worlds-85-richest-have-same-wealth-3-5-billion-poorest-2D11958883

 * As a comparison, see my article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/12/german-question-part-sixty-three.html

WORD HISTORY:
Ken (Kenning)-This word, closely related to "can" ("to be able") and "know," is little used in the U.S. and Canada (I did recently hear it used on CBS's "The Big Bang Theory" comedy), but it does get some use in the U.K. It goes back to Indo European "gn(oh)/gn(eh)," which meant, "to know." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kunnan," which meant "to know, to come to know/learn, to know how to do something from learning." This verb's causative form, "kannijan," meant "to make something known," which gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "cennan," initially with the same meaning. Old Norse, another Germanic language, brought its form, "kenna" (initially with the same meaning, but by the time it came to England, meaning simply "to know"), to England with Danish/Norwegian invaders, who then settled in the eastern part of England, especially in the northeast and in southern Scotland, and it seems to have influenced the meaning of the English word to simply mean "know." The noun form "ken" is means "knowledge, perception/feeling." The other Germanic languages have (verb/noun): German "kennen/Kenntnis," Low German "kennen/Künn ," Dutch "kennen/kennis," West Frisian "kenne" (verb), Danish "kende/kends-" (first part of some compounds which mean "knowledge/ken"), Icelandic "kunnugt" (noun, and verb form "kenna" means "to teach, make known"), Norwegian "kjenne/," Swedish "känna/kuns-" (first part of compounds meaning "knowledge/ken"), plus "kännadom," which also means "knowledge/ken." Unless noted, the forms generally mean "to know" for verb forms and "ken," "knowledge," for noun forms.

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who Is Richest Of Them All?

I suppose everyone has heard the tale of "Snow White," made even more popular in the U.S., and indeed, the world, in the late 1930s on by the Walt Disney animated screen version, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." The story was first popularized back in the earlier 1800s by famous German storytellers Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm, also simply known as "the Brothers Grimm." The tale is about envy by Snow White's stepmother, who is so insecure, she uses a magic mirror to reassure herself by asking, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?"* She is comforted to hear the mirror answer that she is the fairest, until Snow White's beauty eventually becomes the mirror's answer, terribly shaking the stepmother who then tries to have her killed. The stepmother gets a hunter to kill the girl, but he leaves Snow White to what he believes will be certain death in the forest. Snow White comes upon a cottage owned by seven dwarfs who go digging for gold and ore every day. She tells them her story and the dwarfs ask her to keep house for them, which she accepts. The stepmother, however, asks the question of the magic mirror, only to learn that the hunter failed to kill the girl. She then sets out to accomplish the task herself, but fails three times, each time learning that Snow White has survived when the mirror tells her that Snow White is still the fairest.

While the story is about envy over beauty, it could just as easily be about envy over money. People with such insecurity can do just about anything when their egos feel threatened, including wage and benefit cuts and jobs shipped to low wage countries, where not only low wages prevail, but where there are often less environmental regulations; after all, what's a little pollution, when it comes to these insecure maniacs making more money. Just about anyone perceived to be standing in their way can become a victim. They're trying to get that answer from the magic mirror, "YOU are the richest one of all."  

* There are some variations in the English versions, as the original German couldn't be made to rhyme easily in word for word translation into English. The German is, "Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand, wer ist die schönste im ganzen Land?"  Literally, "Little mirror, little mirror on the wall, who is the most beautiful in the entire land? (or, 'in all the land')." Some English versions, in order to have the words rhyme, had the stepmother use a handheld mirror and say, "Mirror, mirror in my hand, who is the fairest in all the land?" German "Wand" (interior wall, partition) is related to English "wound" (not the word for "injury," but from "wind," with a long "i"). It goes back to the time when many building materials were fashioned from branches and twigs "wound" together. German also has "Wall," but it is used only for fortification walls and earthworks and a "Mauer" (closely related to "mural"), a word German borrowed from Latin, is an exterior wall, usually including walls around a city. The famous (infamous) wall that divided Berlin was also called "die Mauer," a feminine noun; thus, "die" is the article, "the wall."

WORD HISTORY:
Enough-This word, meaning "be sufficient, be of the necessary amount," is actually a compound going back to Indo European "ko(m)," which had the idea of "with, near," and whose Old Germanic descendant was "ga/ge." The second part goes back to Indo European "hnak/hnek," which had the notion of "attain." The two gave Old Germanic the compound "ganogaz," which meant "be sufficient, be of the necessary amount." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "genog," with the same meaning. This later became "inough/ynough," before the modern version.^ Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "genug," Low German has "noog," Dutch has "genoeg," West Frisian has "genôch," Danish and Norwegian have "nok," Swedish has "nog" and Icelandic has "nóg."

^ While English is from the West Germanic branch of the Germanic languages and is closely related to German, it is even more closely related to Low German, which is natural, as the ancestral homeland of English (Anglo-Saxon) is north/northwestern Germany, an area where Low German is still spoken with some regularity, although it has been in decline for quite some time, as standard German, based more so on high dialects, has been reducing the number of Low German speakers. Anyway, the "ga/ge" prefix on Low German words is pronounced "ya," as opposed to standard German hard "g" sound. So English "ynough/inough" reflects the connection to Low German pronunciation, and you must remember, the "gh" sound was pronounced in English years ago, but it morphed into an "f" sound, while the "gh" spelling was continued. Further, dialectal English pronunciation has given English "nough," corresponding to its Low German and North Germanic relatives (see above).

Labor Day

The national holiday of Labor Day was established by an act of Congress, and signed by President Grover Cleveland, in 1894, although the tradition of honoring labor in September actually began more than a decade earlier in New York City. Strong unions can help keep America's middle class grow by achieving good wages and benefits for workers, and this in turn can help other workers by setting wage and other standards in employment. An increasing percentage of the national income has been going to the richest people in country, a fact even admitted to by none other than Alan Greenspan, a conservative, pro-business, Republican, who warned the gap was growing so much, it's continuance could literally threaten capitalism. Support unions folks! You don't have to agree with them 100% of the time, but they'll be on your side far more than the wealthiest 1% will ever be.

WORD HISTORY:
Summer-This goes back to Indo European "sem," which meant "part of a year, a season, year." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "sumara," which had narrowed the meaning to the particular season of the year, "summer." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sumor," which then became "sumer," before the modern version. The verb form, meaning "to spend summer in a particular area," was derived from the noun. Common in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German have "Sommer," West Frisian has "simmer," Dutch has "zomer," Icelandic has "sumar," Danish and Norwegian have "sommer," Swedish has "sommar."
 
 

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

American Anxiety

The 1960s were turbulent. There was the Vietnam War and its many casualties, the anti-war protests, which often turned violent, race riots, polluted waters, polluted air, escalating heroin use, assassinations, and the threat of nuclear war, but America's middle class was thriving, buying homes in the expanding array of suburbs, and all the negatives swirling through the country couldn't overcome that one positive on a collective basis. Many Americans felt they had a decent shot to succeed economically, in spite of all the negatives going on. In more recent times, public opinion generally shows Americans as much more pessimistic and sour on the direction of the country; after all, even when many have jobs, the wages and benefits (if there are many) are not going to give them security. There's an "angst" by many who are living on the edge of poverty, just a few paychecks or less from ruin. Forget about the growth in the economy or the declining deficit, the MONEY is going to the top earners, many of whom are scheming to hasten the upward siphoning effect by further suppressing wages or benefits, or both. Part time work has escalated since the 1980s, and while it may keep some from total poverty, it is no substitute for a good paying job with nice benefits. There's been a growing trend that many jobs do not pay workers enough to provide life sustaining income, thus forcing many Americans to take second, or even third, jobs, if available, or if they don't collapse or drop dead from overwork. And you probably thought the ancient Egyptians, southern plantation owners, and the Nazis were the only ones who loved slave labor. The "angst" has been growing since, I'd say, the 1970s, but it really escalated in the last couple of decades, as Americans saw whole plants move out of the country, along with their jobs. As that happened it put pressure on wages and the spiral downward seems to be never ending. Temporary employment agencies, once seen as saviors in hard times, expanded in numbers, a sign of how serious the nation's fortunes had swooned for workers. This all has created a whole new American underclass, devoid of much hope of living a halfway decent life. All the while the top earners took a larger and larger share of the national income. They often call themselves "patriots" and "religious," although they're neither, but when you have lots of money, you get to define the terms yourself, but then again, we've allowed them to get away with it. It's not without reason that Warren Buffett noted that in the real class warfare being waged, HIS class has been winning. People can muddle through all sorts of problems, but when they have little or no hope of economic security, they'll never feel good.

WORD HISTORY:
Wise-This word, closely related to "wit," goes back to Indo European "weid," which had the notion "to see;" thus, "to know how to go, proceed." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wisaz," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the adjective "wis," which meant "learned, experienced." The same source also gave English the verb form, which meant "to become learned, to become aware," now often used in the expression "wise up,"^ but it can also be used (but seldom is anymore, although some sources say it is still used this way in some dialects in England) from the standpoint of the speaker saying, "I'll wise you up," meaning "to make someone wise/knowledgeable, to instruct someone." Then there's the noun (usually as a noun suffix) form, which is used more in modern times in compounds or expressions like "health wise," "income wise," "likewise." It developed the sense "manner or way of doing something," from the idea of "knowing how to do something from observation," thus "doing something in a particular way." The other Germanic languages have: German has the verb "wissen" (to  know), another verb "weisen" (to show/point out; the sense being to "show the way to go or do something")^^, the adjective "weise" (wise), and the noun "Weise" (manner, mode, style, way of doing); Low German has the adjective "wies" (wise), the noun "Wies" (manner, way of doing), the verb "weten" (to know, see note ^) and the verb "wiesen" (to show/point); Dutch has the adjective "wijs" (wise), the noun "wijs" (mode, manner), the verb "wijzen" (to point out), the verb "weten" (to know); West Frisian has the verb "witte" (to know), the verb (used more in compounds) "wize" (to show/point out), the adverb "wis" (certainly; that is, something known); Danish has the verb "vis" (to show), the adjective "vise" (wise), the verb "vide" (to know); Icelandic has the verb "vita" (to know), the adjective "vitur" (wise), the verb "vith" (to show); Norwegian has the verb "vet" (to know), the verb "vise" (to show); and Swedish has the verb "vet" (to know), the verb "visa" (to show, point out), the adjective "vis" (wise) and the noun "vis" (manner, way of doing).  

^ The same Old Germanic source also gave Old English the verb "witan," which meant "learn, come to understand from observation." The common German verb "wissen" is really the same word, but long ago, the high Germanic dialects that essentially evolved into modern German underwent sound changes, one of which was the tendency for the "t" sound to become "s" or double "s;" thus Old English "witan" and German "wissen." Another couple of examples: English "kettle," but German "Kessel" (all German nouns are capitalized) and English "hot," but German "heiss."
   
^ ^ There are a multitude of German verbs with various prefixes that use "weisen" as the main component of the compound; for instance, "beweisen," which means "to prove;" that is, "show something to be true." Again, "show through knowledge" is the notion behind the overall meaning.

NASA Revenue Stream From The Wealthy

This was first published in August 2013, but like food and water, this article never goes out of style.

There's not enough money on this planet for some of the wealthiest of the wealthy, who are also the greediest of the greedy, and often the most ruthless of the ruthless. NASA could fund some of its operations by selling spaceship rides, because the greediest of the greedy are going to want to see if there's gold or some other valuable substance out there in the great somewhere. Since they don't need money, a better thing would be if they devoted their lives to helping others far less fortunate than themselves, but whether they could EVER do ANYTHING without wanting financial reward to try to satisfy their insatiable egos, is a question to which I'm afraid I already know the answer. Don't fall for their patriotism acts either, as the only insignia they support is this one, "$$$." As to any religious claims, their lives are devoted to their true religious book; that is, to their bank book.

We all know that at times there are true shortages of various products. In the last couple of years, abnormally heavy rainfall in some parts of the country damaged some crops, like the peanut crop, for instance, which drove up the price of these American favorites and the derived peanut butter, although it appears prices have now been declining. Then there was tremendous drought in parts of the country, which affected a number of crops, which in turn affected meat prices.* We may complain, but I think most people understand some of this. The thing I've noticed, as I'm sure you have, is that we're paying more, or the same amount, but for smaller quantities. I just bought a jar of seasoned salt. It was the same brand I've been using, but when I picked it up, I thought, "Why does this seem to be different?" Well, when I got home, I looked at the almost empty jar I still had, and at the new jar, and it was the same price, but for about an ounce less.** I look at eggs, and they're all so old, I'm beginning to wonder if you can get fresh eggs anymore, without some connection to a local farm. So you get old eggs, but they don't want those prices to come down to try to move them faster, until they've virtually hit the expiration date, which is sometimes two months after the eggs were packed! So help me, some eggs are so old, I cracked one and a chicken flew out. 

Anyway folks, something is going to have to give eventually. Widening income disparity is going to bring about another crisis, as the wealthy interests can't keep charging us higher prices when incomes for the poor and middle class are stagnating, or actually declining in many cases. Some of the wealthy reactionaries want to take the country way back in time to keep control of it, as they did up until the 1930s, although of course, they don't want to go back to when many executives made 20 or 30 or 40 times what their workers made, instead of today's executives who make hundreds of times more than the average worker. Remember too, the larger the percentage of income that goes to the wealthy, the less money that goes into Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because contributions to these two programs stop at about $110,000. Income above that amount is not subject to paying into Social Security or Medicare. You see, there are lots of problems that stem from income disparity, but they aren't going to tell you that. Selling NASA space trips sounds better and better, especially since the greed of some of these folks is out of this world.

* As most people know, grains of various types, including corn, are often used to feed animals. When the cost of grain rises, the farmers/ranchers have to pay more to feed their livestock and poultry. Put simply, this increases the price of the meat from these animals, or for products from animals, like eggs or dairy products. Most of these meat/agricultural products are on commodity markets, where the overall prices are set, but many of these products are also subsidized by the government, usually by what are called "price supports." Subsides for such products goes back about a hundred years to a time when there were literally millions of American farms and something like a quarter to a third of Americans either lived on farms or were directly tied to agriculture in some way. The terrible state of American agriculture in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression, as so many Americans were linked to agriculture, including banks, which collapsed in record numbers in agricultural communities. Today, as with many other businesses, there are far, far fewer farms (see note), and the percentage of Americans living on or tied directly to agriculture now "appears" to be in the single digits. The thing is, with prices determined on commodity markets, that means, like it, not like it, the wealthy are setting prices. Surprise, surprise! (Note: It's a bit difficult to find a reliable number for farms in the U.S., although I didn't exactly wear myself out trying to find such a number, either, but as compared to the millions from the days of the 1920s and 1930s, the number "appears" to be in the hundreds of thousands now, but that likely counts consolidation; that is, big farms bought up smaller neighboring farms.)

** In my younger days, there was a little quip about the rock salt companies raising their prices like ten cents a bag (a dime was worth far more back then than today's dime), because the salt mines raised salt thirty cents a ton. Get it? If not, the point was, salt went up thirty cents a ton (2000 lbs.), but the price of a bag of rock salt went up a dime on a 5 lb. bag! You do the math.

WORD HISTORY:
Stream-This noun goes back to Indo European "sreu," which had the idea of "flow." This gave Old Germanic "straumaz," which meant "flow, flowing water, current of water." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "stream" (pronounced stree-am), meaning "flowing water, a current;" thus, "stream." This then became "streem," before the modern version. The verb developed from the noun in the 1200s. The other Germanic languages have: German "Strom" (also used for electrical current), Low German Saxon "Stroom," Dutch "stroom," Frisian "stream" and "streamke," Danish and Norwegian "strøm," Icelandic "straumi" and "straumur," and Swedish  "ström." 

How Many Rich Folks Will Step Up To The Plate?

We've heard a lot lately about workers' low wages in the fast food industry. I'd include workers in other industries, but right now, let's just stick to the fast food business. Talk of worker raises has also brought talk of rising product prices.Why? You don't think the wealthy corporate executives and wealthy stockholders are going to give up anything, do you? I just checked, and the CEO for McDonald's Corporation makes nearly 14 million dollars. I'm telling you, that poor guy doesn't know where his next hamburger is coming from. And fries? Oh my! Folks, the only way some of the terrible income inequality that has built up over the last three + decades is going to be brought down, is for those at the top to have to give a little; otherwise, they're just going to keep passing along any cost increases to consumers. You know that means, to you and to me, but they get the same percentage of the income. While millions of Americans have struggled over the years, the wealthiest have born no sacrifice. It's time they learn the meaning of the word "sacrifice," instead of just practicing ruthless greed to pile millions on top of millions in accumulated wealth. Many statistics show that such inequality in American hasn't been this bad for more than a hundred years. If the wealthy keep at this, my prediction of a new feudal society will come true, and I want very much to be wrong.*  I'm not saying price increases should always be off the table (no pun intended), but first let's see how many wealthy people will relinquish, let's say, 3% of their income from that particular business (including big stockholders, not just execs), before we start talking price increases. Who will step up to the plate? Don't all of you multimillionaires and billionaires charge up here at once now! 

* See my article at this link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/10/you-wont-need-time-machine.html

WORD HISTORY:
Plate-This word traces back to Indo European "plat," which had the notion of "to spread, to make thin by spreading." This gave Greek "platys/platis," which meant "broad, wide, spread out." This gave Latin "plattus," which then became "plata," and meant "flat piece of metal." Old French, a Latin based language, inherited a form of the word as "plate," with the same meaning, but also "metal disk used as a coin." English borrowed the word from French in the 1200s, but its meaning, by extension, also moved to "disk used to serve food," the most common modern meaning, but the "flat piece of metal" meaning is still very much alive.A verb form developed from noun in the late 1300s, but then it meant "to put metal pieces (plates) on something," but which later became the more common "to serve up food," as in, "The cook plated the pasta and we all took our share."

Putting It Bluntly About Greed

If old Randy came to you and said, "Wow, I used to be a multimillionaire, but these damned workers' wages and benefits and the tax system have taken me down to a half million, if this keeps up I'll go bankrupt," you might well look at me and think, "He's not exactly starving, but I get the drift of his point." But here's what's really been happening: "I used to have a half million, but now I have 50 million. I'm telling you, we've got to get rid of these unions and we've got to cut Social Security and Medicare and programs for the poor. These things are just ruining the country." Does this make sense to you? That's what's happened folks. There's been NO sacrifice by the wealthiest Americans, only by middle class and poor Americans, all to the BENEFIT of the wealthy. All the while the wealthy have taken, and continue to take, more and more of the national income. Not only have many of the wealthiest of the wealthy shipped jobs and whole plants and facilities overseas to make MORE money (don't be fooled, they were making money in THIS country, but they wanted MORE), they have gotten politicians to lower their tax rates significantly in the last three decades, but they now want to cut income and safety protections for you and others again in this country. They've transferred some of the little wealth some Americans had to themselves. THINK PEOPLE! This is not as complicated as they and their minions want you to believe.

WORD HISTORY
Mean (2)-There are three words "mean" in English. This is the verb for "intend, make intentions known," which is the most common usage of the three different words "mean." Examples: "When I say I'm hungry, I mean it." "I mean to go to the store today," although it may be more common in the past tense, "I meant to go to the store today." "I did not mean to hurt you." It goes back to Indo European "men," which had the notion of "think, reason." This gave its Old Germanic offspring a form which carried forward only in its West Germanic branch (English is part of West Germanic) as "mainijanan," with the meaning "to think, to make a thought known." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "maenan," which meant "to mean, to intend." This then became "menen," before the modern version. German has "meinen," which means "to mean, to think, to hold as an opinion;" Low German Saxon has "menen;" West Frisian has "miene;" and Dutch has "menen." All have the same general meanings of the English word.

The Middle Class And The Poor Are Lousy At Class Warfare

This was first published in June 2013, but it is still relevant in too many ways, especially with Republicans now totally in charge. 

Back when George W. Bush was still president, renowned businessman Warren Buffett commented that there had been class warfare waged in America for a couple of decades, and that his class, the very rich, had been the class waging that war and that indeed his class was winning. Since Buffett's remarks, we've seen an economic meltdown largely triggered and made so horrendous by housing and mortgage manipulation by, ah well, Buffett's class, none of whom spent a day in jail, let alone in prison, as they claimed they hadn't known about all of the mortgages issued to people who hadn't yet been carted off to the coroner's office.* Even then, when forced to give up part of multimillion dollar bonuses, some of the perpetrators kicked, shouted and screamed how unfair all of this was, some seeming to show ingratitude to the taxpayers who helped bail out their banks as well as their own sorry asses. This opened a new front in class warfare, as the guilty were let off, but the poor were blamed for the plunging economy and skyrocketing unemployment, and since then the war on the poor has escalated. Since the economy hit bottom in 2009, it has made a slow, but fairly steady recovery, but with almost all income gains going to ah, Buffett's class. Meanwhile, cuts are being made, or proposed, to food programs in many states and have been proposed nationally. The Republicans, who have made no secret that they favor ah, Buffett's class, lost the presidential election in 2012, but such cuts may come under a Democratic president.**  

So let me set this out there for you: since Reagan and the conservative philosophy came to prevail, taxes were cut, especially for the rich (which we were told would not create budget deficits). Jobs were first sent to what were generally non union, generally lower wage states, putting pressure on wages for middle class people and the working poor. Then trade deals were promoted with countries where workers make a fraction of what American workers make, with whole plants eventually being transferred to some of these countries by those great patriots of ah, Buffett's class. With wages stagnant or falling for many Americans, conservatives appealed to those people's desire to maintain life style by offering tax cuts (to also help pay their growing credit bills often brought about by the attempt to bridge incomes with credit buying), which then brought serious budget deficits, which brought calls for cuts to programs for poor people to help balance the budget, the number of whom has been growing because of all of the above. The vicious cycle continues, although recently more revenues will be added from ah, Buffett's class. As Warren Buffett told politicians to "quit coddling the rich." You think maybe we should listen?   

* When defaults on mortgages grew, housing prices began to plummet, and the effects of job transfers overseas and the downward pressure on wages for the non wealthy had people who had paid their mortgages for years swept up in the resulting carnage.  

** All of this traces back to the 2010 election. For more on why, see: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-2010-was-such-important-election.html
  
WORD HISTORY:
Rare-This is the word meaning "uncommon, scare," as the word with the same spelling, but meaning, "not fully cooked," is a different word. "Rare" goes back to Indo European "re," which had the notion of "loose, divide;" thus, "solitary, thin, scarce." This gave its Latin offspring "rarus," with much the same "solitary, thin, scarce" meanings. Old French, a Latin based language, inherited the word as "rere," meaning "uncommon, sparse." English borrowed the word from French in the 1400s.

The Super Wealthy and The Rest Of Us

The super obsession with money has deep roots in this country, so much so, that the wealthy interests have always sought to keep Americans divided and to profit, literally, from those divisions. For more than three decades the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has been growing. This didn't just happen, WE helped them rape us! The big money interests convinced millions of less than super wealthy Americans to support laws to benefit their interests. Wealthy business interests hate unions. They got states to pass so called "right to work" laws, many in the South, weakening unions. They are still pushing such laws today. Of course the "claim" was how they were just being democratic (small "d"). Once they had a number of states with such laws, they began moving plants and jobs to those states. For you folks in so called "right to work" states, don't complain when these same people move jobs from your states overseas. This is what YOU helped them do to states with labor unions, now they have turned their sites on you.

Then they got laws passed opening the flood gates to cheaper foreign products. As American companies struggled to compete against the far cheaper foreign goods, jobs were lost in this country, but businesses then started shipping plants and jobs overseas to cheaper labor nations. I shouldn't have to explain this to any American, but some just don't get it. We won't have to dig up Einstein to tell us that if American workers make $30 an hour in a plant and workers in certain foreign countries make $30 a WEEK, guess which plant can afford to sell its products cheaper? On top of that, there aren't as many product safety regulations in low wage countries, so we've had scares over foods, toys and other products. When we were competing against more developed nations, there was not as much imbalance in prices and regulations. As wages and benefits for many Americans fell, some had little or no choice but to buy cheaper foreign made goods, something the big money people knew would happen. Others got jobs in some way involved in importing or distributing such foreign goods, forming a constituency for cheaper goods. Play one American off against the other = big bucks for the monied interests. The concept is not hard to understand. Remember, purist capitalism is NOT about patriotism, or doing the right thing for workers and their families, it is only about making money, and more money, and more money.

As I mentioned above, the interests are still pushing laws to break up unions, a disaster for all of us just waiting to happen if they succeed. Don't listen to their absolute nonsense rhetoric, THINK!  What this all comes down to is, they aren't going through all of this to pay you more, they want to cut your wages/benefits and get more profit and tax cuts for themselves, the wealthiest Americans. They have so much, they don't know what to do with all of their $$$, except make more. Don't forget, they got right to work in many states. Why? More money for themselves. They sent jobs overseas, why? More money for themselves! Only united opposition can stop such nonsense. They fear government and Americans looking out for other Americans, why? Do bugs like Raid? Hell no! If you want to know why they've been so successful, you only need to go look in the mirror for one of the culprits, and that includes me. We not only let them get away with this, we gave them a helping hand.

WORD HISTORY:
Cut-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear. It goes back to North Germanic "kuttjana," which meant "to cut," but why North Germanic had the word and not the other Germanic languages is not known (English, by the way, is West Germanic),^ although forms in the other Germanic languages could have died out. It could have been a North Germanic "invention" too, or it could have been borrowed by North Germanic from one of the ancient languages it came into contact with. Danish raiders and settlers in England spoke Old Norse, a form of North Germanic from a thousand and more years ago. They brought the word "kuti" with them, which was borrowed into English as "cyttan/kyttan," a word assumed to have existed. This borrowing is assumed to have taken place well before the Normans invaded England in 1066 A.D., but the word sort of remained in the shadows, as English already had other words for "cut," represented in their modern forms by "carve," "snide," "hew" and "shear." Old English "cyttan/kyttan" then became "cutten," before the modern form. The noun form was derived from the verb circa 1500. Swedish dialect still has "kåta," a noun for "a cut."        
^ The basic principles here are, Old Germanic was an offshoot of Indo European. Old Germanic then divided into strong regional dialects now called North, West and East Germanic, which then divided into numerous dialects, some of which then eventually formed somewhat "standard forms" to become modern languages, albeit with a variety of dialects of those languages. East Germanic died out, but its most prominent representatives were Gothic, Burgundian (it is from the Germanic tribe the Burgundians that the region of France known as "Burgundy" got its name), and Vandalic (it is from the Germanic tribe the Vandals that we have the words "vandal" and "vandalize." North Germanic's most prominent modern languages are Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic. West Germanic is most represented in modern times by English, German, Low German, Dutch and Frisian.   

Reform Entitlements For Those 'Moochers,' The Rich, Part Two

As to Medicare financing, besides the 2.9% contribution to Medicare from employees and employers (each pays 1.45%), recipients (largely elderly) have deductibles, co-pays, or premiums to meet for many services, but the program is funded, in part, from general revenues, which conservatives generally say provides truth to their claim that Medicare is an entitlement program. A big problem for Medicare is that the aging of the population will add millions of recipients to the program, as the percentage of those paying into the program to finance it will drop. Further, increasing health care costs have been a problem for decades, and those costs tend to rise above the general rate of inflation. When I was a kid in the 1960s there were frequent arguments on just how to control rising medical costs. Just from things I've read fairly recently, medical costs have slowed in the last couple of years, but whether this is a long term trend, or just a temporary blip, no one can truly say. A number of people believe part of the high cost of health care in America is due to unnecessary tests and procedures to run up profits, with less health benefit to Americans to show for those high costs, compared to a number of countries which have lower costs, but the same or better life expectancy rates. In my opinion too, there's an awful tendency in this country to dismiss information about how other countries do things. As soon as someone says, "In country XYZ, they do this," almost immediately we hear, "We don't want to be like XYZ." If XYZ finds a cure for cancer, will we want to remain isolated from that cure? Ignorance can come by many routes, one of which is shutting out knowledge.

I could go on and on about Medicare, but, like it, not like it, the laws of arithmetic have very much come into play, and some plan will have to be developed soon to deal with this valuable program. Conservatives have "generally" touted proposals to "privatize" Medicare, with recipients having to choose between competing insurance plans and with Uncle Sam contributing a certain amount toward the purchase of insurance. Medicare is a complicated  subject and I can only touch on it here, but I may do a separate series in the future.

A couple of years ago, President Obama proposed eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Such subsides come to somewhere between 4 and 5 billion or so a year, depending upon whose figures you check, and seemingly another 5 or more billion, if you include breaks also offered outside of the oil/gas industry. Some Republicans screamed "foul," claiming there were no such breaks for the industry, but the howls from oil executives and oil lobbyists suggest a lot of expended energy (no pun intended) for something that doesn't exist. Lots of businesses get subsidies, whether you call them tax breaks or direct payments, that's what they are, subsidies. Whether these subsidies are fair or unfair is a matter of discussion, but Republicans have made such an issue of "survival of the fittest" and "free markets," that support for these subsidies must certainly give others the right to call Republican advocates "socialists," a term they absolutely love to throw around about others. It seems to me I recall opposition from some Republicans to government help for developing alternative energy companies, like for wind and solar, and these they definitely called "subsides." And aid to the auto industry was cause for much consternation among many a Republican, including one Mitt Romney, famous for his comment about the auto companies, "Let them go broke." The President made it clear that oil company profits were astronomical when he proposed elimination of their subsidies, and that was part of his case about doing away with them.

As most of you probably already know, the complex U.S. tax system would keep Einstein awake at nights trying to figure it out, if he were still kicking and dared to take on the challenge. Folks, let me tell you something, this code would not be nearly so complex if it weren't for businesses and wealthy people turning the screws on people in both parties in Congress (and on occupants of the White House of both parties, too), either directly or through their lobbyists. It's hardly been a secret that the wealthiest Americans have done VERY well in income growth for decades, as incomes for middle and lower income Americans have grown little or actually declined. President Reagan cut taxes substantially for the wealthy. When President Clinton raised taxes on wealthy Americans, if you think the recent near miss by an asteroid was scary, we were assured this was THE END, no near miss. Of course, not only did that not happen, the country actually entered a period of growth and declining unemployment. In the latter part of 2012, the Congressional Research Service* found that giving tax cuts to wealthy Americans has little or no effect on economic growth, but that such tax cuts likely contribute to the expanding income gap between the wealthy and the rest of Americans. Some Republicans tried to squelch ... I mean, to have the report tone down its findings, which indeed happened, although Democrats made the original findings available.**

The Republican pressure is hardly surprising. For more than thirty years Republicans have embraced a philosophy of tax cuts of all kinds, tilted towards the rich, sometimes glaringly so, claiming such cuts would stimulate growth and provide prosperity for a broad segment of American society. In case you haven't noticed, it hasn't worked. Folks, all of the charts, diagrams, and statistical analysis are not always easily followed, but the main thing is, the conclusion by the Congressional Research Service is not difficult to understand. Increasing wealth has been going to the top earners for decades, often at accelerated rates, aided by tax cuts. The more money that goes to the top, the less money the rest of us have. In the end, this isn't rocket science. There has been a tremendous transfer of wealth from many Americans to a small segment of American society who already have more than enough to sustain them many times over. Now, I'm not so narrow as to say there haven't been changes in technology and such that have helped the wealthy gain even more income, but the tax cuts have been "piling on," and it's about time a penalty flag is thrown and enforced. So Republicans are on the hook for a philosophy some of them have taken as a religion, but it's a philosophy that doesn't work, except to the detriment of many Americans, and thus, to the country. No wonder they wanted the findings of the Congressional Research Service toned down.

Next, the final part.
           
* The Congressional Research Service is a part of the Library of Congress which performs research and analysis of various policy measures or proposals for Congress. 

** The report is pretty "dry" reading, but the entire report can be viewed here: http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdf

WORD HISTORY:
Dolt-This word goes back to Indo European "dhwul/dhwel," which had the notion "to obscure, to dim," and seems to have also been applied to things that caused something to be obscured or dimmed, such as "swirling smoke or dust." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "dulaz," which used the "obscured, dimmed" notion in another manner; that being, "foolish;" that is, "unclear, dimmed thoughts." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "dol," which meant "stupid, foolish, silly." This then became "dul(l)," before finally settling on "dull."^ The verb form of "dull" had "dolte/dulte" as the participle form, which later became modern "dulled." The verb back then meant "to make or become stupid or foolish," besides the "become blunt or lose brightness" meaning that eventually prevailed as the main meaning in modern English. This then produced an adjective "dold," meaning "stupid, foolish, silly." By the mid 1500s "dolt" had been derived as a noun from the adjective with the meaning "stupid person." The change of the ending "d" in "dold" to the noun "t" in "dolt," is not uncommon in the Germanic languages, most obvious in many, but not all, standard German words derived from Old High German, such as "toll" ("crazy, wild," but also the figurative "super, fantastic"), compared to English "dull" (the old meaning was "stupid, foolish"), or standard German "Deutschland" (Germany), compared to some German dialects "Teutschland." American English has "learned" as the proper past tense of "learn," as in "I learned the lesson," but British English has "learnt."      

^ For the "Word History" of "dull," see Part One of this article:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/03/reform-entitlements-for-those-moochers.html

Reform Entitlements For Those 'Moochers,' The Rich

With the nation undergoing seemingly endless battles over the budget, some Republicans have targeted programs they like to call "entitlements;" that is, programs, they say, people feel entitled to receive, with the further connotation that these programs and their recipients are bleeding the country of its wealth and financial stability. Also there seems to be this belief by some that this supposed dependence on government is just somehow awful, but that being at the mercy of greedy businesspeople is just so much better. The 2012 election showed us just what the use of the term "entitlements" meant for Republicans, as their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, clearly spelled it all out in what became perhaps THE defining moment of the campaign, as he spoke to wealthy campaign donors who paid $50,000 a plate for dinner one day at a mansion in Florida.* In his remarks, Romney said that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama, because they were dependent upon government through various "entitlements." ** Reaction was swift and generally negative, even from many Republicans, who distanced themselves from the remarks, but right wing supporters tended to rally to Romney's defense, with the term "moochers" working its way into the discussion as a term for recipients.

We often now hear Social Security and Medicare mentioned in the context of "entitlements," which is incorrect. Americans pay into both.*** Now you can argue we don't pay enough, or we haven't paid enough, into the programs, or that some Americans receive too much or too little, but these are totally different arguments. The idea with Social Security when it was established, was that if everyone paid in, there would be broad-based support for it, rather than having some sort of "means testing," which would make it more of an entitlement, as everyone would pay, but not everyone would receive benefits. So, very wealthy people, age 65 and up, receive a Social Security check each month, regardless of the fact that they don't need it. By law, they cannot give it back, or cancel it. So has the premise about broad-based support held up? Yes, in the sense that polls show a large majority of Americans support Social Security, but since wealthy people don't need Social Security, even to supplement their incomes, the idea that they will necessarily view Social Security in the same light as the rest of us is mistaken, although there are many wealthy folks, I'm sure, who recognize the need for the program. There are also those who are pretty much opposed to Social Security, and over time, there has been a concerted effort to discredit the program and have people invest money for their own retirement. That assumes people would do so on their own, or that everyone could be an investment genius (if there is such a thing). This takes us back to more survival of the fittest (actually of the luckiest), with some of the true beneficiaries being the big banks and Wall Street investment firms, in general.**** So what happens to people who make bad investments? When they get older, what, do we throw them out on the street or just what should happen to them? With falling or essentially stagnant wages for many Americans over the last few decades, what about people who can't invest much? Let's face it, left on our own, if an emergency pops up, real or perceived, many folks will choose NOT to invest if they feel they need the money at the moment to deal with whatever it is, including necessities like buying the latest IPhone, HDTV or some other gadget. Social Security has been a bugaboo for many Republicans dating back to the mid 1930s when it was voted into existence (many Republicans voted FOR Social Security back then, but there were opponents, including some Democrats, but the two political parties were not as ideologically divided back then). Further, Social Security does NOT contribute to the budget deficit; in fact, if anything, it has helped to mask deficits, as it has run a surplus for a number of years, and Social Security does not get money directly from Uncle Sam's general revenues anyway.***** I point this out only because some Republicans have muddied the deficit waters by saying Social Security has to be dealt with now, perhaps bringing some Americans to the misinformed conclusion that Social Security is part of the current problem, which is totally untrue, something the opponents of Social Security seem loathe to make clear. There will be issues about Social Security in the future, if current projections hold up, and people on both sides of the aisle agree on that. The sooner the potential problems are dealt with is undoubtedly better, but Americans should not be stampeded into changes that are NOT in their, and thus the nation's, overall interest, but are very favorable for wealthy business interests.  

As often happens with me, I intended this to be just one article, but it will take at least another installment. Hey, I'm verbose. That's okay, because these are very important issues, and I seriously doubt many Americans really even understand the basics about the debate, let alone the finer points. So I'll continue in "Part Two." 

* Candidates from both major political parties take money from wealthy donors.

** Mr. Romney said more, but that was the key line, although his further remarks elaborated about people who believe themselves to be victims, who feel it is the responsibility of government to care for them with food, housing, medical care, and "you name it."

*** I believe it is more appropriate to say "Americans contribute to both programs," rather than to say "Americans are taxed" for these programs. Opponents of both programs like to use the word "tax," because of its negative connotation, but we are paying into these programs for our own potential benefit, as well as sharing a common responsibility as a nation. If you have health insurance, I'll bet you don't go around saying, "I paid my tax to the insurance company." Or if you have some type of retirement policy or investment plan, you don't say, "I paid my tax for my 401 K." Also, contributions to Social Security are paid on up to just south of $114,000 in income and not above. All adjusted income is subject to the 1.45% rate for Medicare. Employers contribute an equal share on both rates, but their contributions to employees is a business expense, and the self employed pay the full rate on themselves, but they get to use the "employer amount" as an expense.  

**** I've told this many times before, but it's certainly relevant again here. My father was a staunch Republican, who, like many Republicans back then, criticized Social Security. Then he retired and started receiving his Social Security. A while later the Republicans took over Congress in the mid 1990s and the talk of privatizing part or all of Social Security became part of the national debate. Then my father saw it all VERY differently, even bluntly criticizing Republicans, saying big business people just wanted to get their greedy hands on the Social Security money. My father and I often had ... ah ... disagreements on politics, but in this case, he hit the nail on the head.  

***** Social Security gets money from Uncle Sam, but only because the program holds U.S. Treasury securities, just as anyone holding government bonds does. This means Social Security buys U.S. government debt in the form of these special securities. Interest is paid on the securities. Bonds, whether issued by some government entity or by private companies, are a form of debt for the issuer.

WORD HISTORY:
Dull-This word goes back to Indo European "dhwul/dhwel," which had the notion "to obscure, to dim," and seems to have also been applied to things that caused something to be obscured or dimmed, such as "swirling smoke or dust." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "dulaz," which used the "obscured, dimmed" notion in another manner; that being, "foolish;" that is, "unclear, dimmed thoughts." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "dol," which meant "stupid, foolish, silly." This then became "dul(l)," before finally settling on "dull." The meaning of "dim of mind" took on the figurative meaning "blunt" for knives and other implements, and the primary "stupid" meaning began to recede, although we still use "dull witted." A verb form developed form the adjective, meaning "to lose sharpness or sheen;" thus still today we talk about "colors dulled" by the sun, weather, or washing, usually in the case of clothing. Forms in the other Germanic languages have generally maintained the connection with "unclear in thought" or "in some manner obscured," and as their English cousin, they all once pretty much meant "dimwitted" in some sense:: German has "toll," which usually means "crazy, wild," but has the every day language meaning "great, super, fantastic" (from the idea that when you like something, you go crazy, wild); Low German Saxon has "dull" (angry, fantastic); some Low German dialect has "doll" (mad); Dutch has "dol" (mad, wild), West Frisian has "dwylsinnich" (crazy, wild); Icelandic has "dulur" (secretive; that is, obscuring something). I could not find modern versions of the word in Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish. 

The Sequester Pinches An "Essential" Service

First published in March 2013


Both political parties, or factions within those two parties, often make dire predictions of what will happen if the other side gets its way. Recently it's been the Obama administration and Democrats telling the public that the country might just dry up and blow away if the so called "sequester" went into effect, although previously Republicans predicted the whole thing would be terrible, mainly because of defense cuts. The reality of the situation then saw the Democrats back away from the terrible predictions they had been foretelling. There will be consequences due to the sequester, but unless you're one of the people apt to lose your job quickly or have your hours trimmed, there won't be excruciating pain for most Americans, at least not right away, and maybe never. Just as tax cuts and stimulus programs take time to have a positive effect, cuts take time to have a negative effect. What effect the 85 billion in cuts will have on the economy remains to be seen, and it may take a couple of months or so before we have some inkling of an answer. Presently, the most visible sign of the cuts is the halt to White House tours, a plan that has drawn the ire of some Republicans. You know the Republicans, right? They're the party that seems to want government to go away, except to fight wars. Government can't regulate Wall Street, can't protect consumers from predatory banks and credit card companies, can't help uninsured Americans with health care, can't tax the wealthy, can't regulate pollution, and a number of other cant's. Well now they're saying those "cant's" are superseded by another "can't;" that is, the government "can't" stop giving tours of the White House, obviously a life or death program, seemingly right up there with fighting wars.

After their defeat in the 2008 election, the GOP opposed President Obama at every step on the economy, predicting dire consequences if he/we didn't do what they recommended, which was what they had been recommending and practicing since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981; that is, tax cuts, especially for the "sit on their ass class," I mean, "the job creators," as they have terrible concerns for the plight of millionaires and billionaires, and they seek to help them pile millions on top of more millions on top of billions, including by blatant attempts to destroy America's unions. You know unions, don't you? They schemed to market securities backed by bad mortgages, mortgages they knew to be bad, sending the world into a financial crisis. Oh ... wait a second. That wasn't unions, was it? Well, but then of course there are those damned poor people. Can't they just go away? Wealthy people wouldn't have to listen to all this stuff about the income gap and inequality. Now there's a new Pope known for being an advocate for the poor. Look out Donald Trump, you might have to pay a little more in taxes if this Pope starts to speak out for more equality. No wonder Trump can't get his hair done right, he's overwhelmed with taxes. The Pope should be saying, "Be a Christian and help a millionaire."   

The Republicans of the 1960s were nowhere near as vicious as those of today, but some then too vehemently opposed the implementation of Medicare for America's seniors, just as some opposed the passage of Social Security in the 1930s, another program that has just bugged the absolute hell out them. The problem for them and their big business, egomaniac allies has been, the public, including many Republican voters, came to embrace these two programs wholeheartedly. Still, today's hardcore Republican opponents of these programs haven't given up on destroying things they can't get their hands on. On top of everything else, now no White House tours. The country is in dire peril!    

WORD HISTORY:
Can-This is the verb meaning "to be able to do something, to know how to do something, have the knowledge to do." My guess is, most English speakers are unaware that "can" is closely related to "know." It goes back to Indo European "gnoh," which had the notion of "to have knowledge." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kunnanan," with the same general meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon), "cunnan," which later became "connen," with the first and third person singular present being "can." The infinitive form then changed to the shorter "can." Common throughout the other Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "können" (1st & 3rd person singular present tense "kann"); Dutch has "kunnen/kan;" West Frisian has "kinne," Icelandic has "kunna/kann," Danish has "kunne/kan," Norwegian has "kunne/kan," and Swedish has "kunna/kan."