It's About Coalitions, Not Purity, Part Forty-Eight

The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown, Part 5

While the nominations and political party conventions took place, Americans continued to endure record high oil and gasoline prices, along with the news of mounting numbers of foreclosures in the housing market. Believe it or not (offered sarcastically), some people better versed in economics actually began to ask questions in print and on television, as to "who" was absorbing the losses on what was becoming a staggering number of foreclosures. Put simply, if I loaned you the money to buy your house, and then you can't meet the payments, "it ain't Aunt Mary in Tuscaloosa" who is losing the money, it's me! So those in the know about the financial system began focusing on the banks, and then on the whole system in the mortgage industry, which was very complex, and thus beyond the scope of this article. It turned out, the system was rotten with bad mortgages, as many individuals, government entities and businesses had invested in mortgages. DAMN! Aunt Mary in Tuscaloosa did lose money! She held investments in a bank and an insurance company.

In mid September 2008, Lehman Brothers, a large Wall Street investment bank in business for more than 150 years, was next to suffer the consequences of irresponsible capitalism. After serious declines in its stock price and announced layoffs of personnel, clients abandoned the bank in droves, withdrawing their money and assets almost instantly. The bank announced it would file for bankruptcy, and the DOW dropped 500 points in one day, with further staggering losses to follow. The Fed did not intervene, thus giving the "free marketers" their wish. With Lehman's collapse, the situation became so serious, the Bush administration, that bulwark of "free market capitalism," having oft essentially said to American economic problems, "we can't do anything about anything, because its a free market economy," announced, along with the support of the Fed, that they needed a special fund of $700 billion (with a "b") to shore up the financial system or that the country faced a new DEPRESSION. Fear spread, as the extent of the mortgage crapola became more obvious, and that it was not just limited to a couple of financial institutions. Further, the greed and corruption had many accomplices throughout the "free market" system. You can't regulate 'em, or it ain't freedom (excuse me, third grade English teachers). The thing was, getting anywhere near accurate information of the financial condition of many institutions was difficult, because they were fearful of releasing how bad their individual situations truly were, or of seeking help from the Federal Reserve,* as that could bring about what had happened to Lehman Brothers, a fast collapse, as customers withdrew their money in just hours.

On the political front, the McCain campaign, struggling with its ties to the unpopularity of President George W. Bush, and with increasing discontent over the war in Iraq and high gasoline prices, now faced an even bigger challenge, as some Democrats, independents, and probably even some Republicans, even though at least some, likely harboring some bigotry toward Barack Obama over his racial background and/or his atypical name, overcame those feelings out of fear for their own well being and decided to support Obama. There were, however, opposite reactions, as some longtime Democrats, unable to overcome their bigotry, or outright racism, chose to support McCain. At the time, a guy I knew, a life long Democrat, so full of hatred toward black Americans, backed McCain. He turned against Democrats with a vengeance. I'm not certain of this, but I believe since that time, he became a Republican. So the coalitions were jumbled a bit, but with Obama and Democrats benefiting more than McCain and Republicans; at least, in the overall political situation, although not in specific states or certain local communities. The 2008 election showed our good side and our bad side, simultaneously, as many Americans rose above race and bigotry, but the election, and Obama's background, aroused some of the basest fears and hatreds in other Americans. 

John McCain has long had a "maverick streak," and an admiration for former progressive (for his times) Republican, President Teddy Roosevelt. In a country increasingly divided over politics, often driven, in my opinion, by radio and television personalities promoting division over unity, candidate John McCain in October 2008 told supporters at a rally, one of whom had commented that he was "scared" of an Obama presidency, and another who had claimed Obama was "an Arab," with all the racism and bigotry that was meant to convey to Americans about terrorists, that Obama "is a decent man," and that, "you don't have to be scared of him being president," and further, "he's not (an Arab.") ** I guess I'm showing my own cynicism, but I was PLEASANTLY stunned to see McCain rise above the nastiness of politics and choose to stand up for his opponent.

The stock markets plunged and so did the price of oil, even after we had been told what an oil "shortage" there was; thus, justifying the surge in price to $140 to $150 a barrel. Within weeks the price had plummeted to about $30 a barrel. Ah, see Sir Walter Scott quote in note *, below.

Next, the results of Election 2008 ...

* The reason financial institutions feared going to the Federal Reserve, was that it would then be an admission of financial trouble, and while in "normal times," logic by investors and customers might not have sparked a stock selloff and customer withdrawals, as the institution was getting help to stabilize, with the tense situation in late 2008, logic was something not in supply, as lack of transparency over financial matters had made EVERYONE distrustful, including distrust between banks and other financial institutions. "O what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." (quoted from Sir Walter Scott, and technically it was/is "practise" in British English) 

** McCain was not acting as if being an Arab were something to be ashamed of, but rather, he was simply pointing out the error stated by the lady. There were rumors circulating about Obama not being an American and about him being a secret Muslim (again, stoking fears by Americans of terrorism) and that he was associating with terrorists.  

WORD HISTORY:
Plunge-Like its relative "plumb" (also, "plumber"), the origins of this word are uncertain, although some believe it is from a non Indo European language in the Mediterranean area, as both Latin and Greek have forms of the word. It traces back to Latin "plumbum," which meant "lead" (the metal). This produced the Latin verb, "plumbicare," which meant, "to throw/toss lead," "seemingly" in reference to "tossing lead weighted fishing nets or lines into the water." Old French, a Latin-based language, took the word as "plongier," meaning, "to dive or sink into water." English borrowed the word, as "plungen," in the second half of the 1300s, almost certainly under the influence of the Norman spelling, or what came to be the Norman spelling, "plungier." ^ Also by that time, the meaning had broadened beyond "diving or sinking into water," to more figurative senses, like, "diving into work or into a particular task;" also, "to commit to some idea or cause." The noun was derived from the verb, with the meaning, "a dive into water," or, "an unexpected forceful fall downward" ("I tripped and plunged down the hillside").    

^ It is unclear to me whether "plungier" was the spelling brought to England by the Normans. It's important to remember, the Norman dialect differed somewhat from the French of Paris or other parts of France, so spelling and pronunciation variations were common. 

"It's About Coalitions, Not Purity" Part Forty-Four

"The Chickens Come Home To Roost-George W. Bush's Second Term"

George W. Bush's second term began with the failure of his Social Security privatization plan to get anywhere. In Iraq, a civil war had broken out between Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims. Caught in the middle were American, British, and other coalition forces or their assistance groups, as well as a number of private security contractors. Bombings and killings were common, and the whole situation was a mess, as coalition forces also tried to oust al Qaeda units. On top of this, reports and photos had surfaced of various torture techniques used by Americans against prisoners in Iraq. This brought condemnation from many within the U.S., as well as from international sources. This part of the war in Iraq continued to grow in media coverage as time went on.     

On the domestic front, oil/gasoline prices surged to new highs, tapping the pocketbooks of already financially strapped Americans. The number of housing foreclosures were rising ominously, as the further movement of jobs to overseas production facilities, and the subsequent reduction in wages in some parts of the American economy, hung like a dark cloud over the country, bringing a queasy feeling about the storm that was coming. During the campaign, a story broke regarding Republican Mark Foley, a congressman from Florida. The story indicated that Foley had sent sexy messages to teenage boys who worked, or had worked, as congressional pages. Foley resigned about 5 weeks from the election, but the whole matter brought into question how much the Republican House leadership knew about Foley's activities. * Also brewing at that time were separate, but related scandals involving lobbyist and Republican contributor Jack Abramoff (and others), including deals about a casino boat company in Florida, a deal about minimum wage in the Mariana Islands (a U.S. Territory in the Pacific), Native American gambling casinos and campaign contributions. All of these matters are highly complex, but they touched several Republicans in Congress and government, as well as Republican supporters outside of government. Their complexity makes them far beyond this article, but there are many online sources, and also check your local library for books and articles. 

The 2006 midterm elections saw a major win for Democrats, as President Bush's popularity plunged, dragging down many Republicans with it, and the Republican coalition fractured to a degree. Democrats gained 31 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 6 seats in the U.S. Senate. These Democratic victories often came at the expense of Republican incumbents, and in the Senate, Democrats took seats from Republicans in Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Rhode Island. Democrats also gained 6 governorships, as well as numerous state legislative seats, and state and local offices. Nancy Pelosi of California became the first ever woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

* Republicans, by this point in time, almost all of the conservative bent, had made anti-gay rhetoric a major part of their political party. Here was a Republican directly involved in gay sexual activities. At that time, Dennis Hastert was the Republican Speaker of the House. In the spring of 2016, Hastert admitted that he had molested teenage boys when he was a high school wrestling coach. He was given a prison sentence and a fine.

WORD HISTORY:
Torture-This word, distantly related to "thwart," goes back to Indo European "twork/terkw," which had the notion of "turn, twist." This gave Latin the verb, "torquere," which meant, "to twist, to bend," and its participle form, "tortus," gave Latin the noun, "tortura," which meant, "writhing, pain brought on by injury inflicted to get information or to get agreement to something." This passed into French as "torture," with the same meaning. English borrowed the word circa 1500 from French, but likely with the reinforcement of Latin itself. 

Will The Game Have Rules

NOTE: I first posted this article on July 26, 2009, and then updated it July 18, 2013, but unfortunately it is still relevant. Just to give some perspective, when I initially wrote this, Barack Obama had just taken office in January of that year, and there was lots of talk about correcting the abuses of Wall Street banks and of the financial industry in general. Up until now only modest changes have been made, the country's largest banks are larger under Obama than they were under Bush, when they were deemed "too big to fail," and no banker (none, zero, zilch) went to jail, let alone to prison. In fact, some of the bankers seemed incensed that they were called before Congress to answer some questions and to defend their huge bonuses. Of course they felt entitled to the bonuses, even though they said they knew nothing of the multi-trillion dollar mortgage mess. No "accountability" (pun intended) with them. It became, "Just give us huge bonuses, but we're not responsible for anything that actually goes wrong." Income disparity continues to widen, as the top earners have sopped up most of the gains since the modest recovery from the "Great Recession." Unions and workers in general are under attack by some greedy and ruthless business people and their Republican political allies hoping to squelch the last organized opposition to their total domination of the country. Talk of doing away with minimum wage and child labor laws have surfaced, although they have not yet been pushed by the greediest of the greedy. When I first saw "Bang The Drum Slowly," corporate CEOs made 20 to 30 times what the average worker made. Now the CEOs make hundreds of times what the average worker makes. So let's see what I had to say in 2009.  
                                                          _________________________

One of my favorite movies is "Bang The Drum Slowly." When I was in college many years ago, one of the nearby movie theaters had matinee specials, I believe it was on Wednesdays. I had a long spell between classes then, and I'd frequently take in the matinee special. That's how I saw this movie. It wasn't really advertised, nor did it have any big names in starring roles (at that time), but it was about baseball, and I loved baseball; plus, if I remember right, the matinee special only cost fifty cents (remember, that was the early 1970s). One of the main actors in the movie went on to become fairly well known years later in the first several seasons of "Law and Order." This was Michael Moriarty, who played Assistant District Attorney Ben Stone. The other main actor became a Hollywood staple and is known to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past 35-40 years; Robert De Niro.

The movie was based on a novel written in the mid 1950s by Mark Harris,* and in both the book and the movie, the ballplayers use a card game called TEGWAR to help admiring fans in the hotel lobbies part with some of their money. TEGWAR stands for "The Exciting Game Without Any Rules." A couple of the players sit in the lobby playing cards. A fan or two recognizes them and asks if they can sit in on the game. They sit down, get out their wallets, toss in a few bucks, and they're promptly told things like, "Throw down a card in the middle of the table." When they do so, one of the players lays down a card and claims the pot, regardless of what cards have been displayed; even if, for instance, the fan had an ace, any card tossed in by the player beats it. Why? Because there are no rules; at least not for the fans, as the players make up the "rules," if you want to call them that, as they go along. The "duped" fans don't understand the game, but they seldom offer any major challenge, as they're getting to play with their baseball heroes and they don't want to sound dumb (ahhhh.....TOO LATE!!!).

This "game" may sound all too familiar, but in a different form. For decades, but especially in the past three decades, many wealthy Americans, and more recently the money managers of the greatly expanded financial services industry, have been obsessed with changing, repealing or just trampling on government regulation of business and investment. Some in government, even some supposedly from "The People's Party;" that is, Democrats, have been complicit in dismantling the safeguards to the American people and the American economy. Most of the support, however, has come from Republicans, as this has been one of their main philosophical components, but that's NOT to say that ALL Republicans have agreed with what has gone on, especially when they now see the results (remember, this was written in 2009), but so many people, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, just didn't understand the complexity of the changes that were taking place. When you add in Reagan slogans like, "Government is not the solution to the problem; government IS the problem," it isn't all that difficult to see how Americans were duped by the players of this TEGWAR game.

Just to make a point, oil and gasoline were successfully put into "futures markets" during the Reagan era. All went fairly well, but then the big boys figured it all out. Not only could they drive prices higher themselves, but they could pool money with other wealthy people into veritable pricing juggernauts.** They can move oil or gasoline prices instantaneously!!! Not only that, but I'm sure most of you remember when gasoline prices changed once or twice a week, and even then, by usually a few pennies at a time one way or the other. I'm also sure you know how in the last several years, prices can change on a daily basis, and by 20, 30, 40 cents at a time!!! But that's only when prices go higher! They come down far, far more slowly. These are supposed to be "future" prices that are set on "futures markets," but now, if oil goes up five bucks a barrel in one day for a contract that is two months off, the gas stations are out changing the price the SAME DAY!!! (My deuce beats your ace because I control the "rules!") I have to say that with so many oil company owned gas stations, that we have further manipulation of the system, but independents are guilty, too.

Try to stay informed. We're all in a hurry. We want sound bytes or short magazine or newspaper clips to tell us the basics to some very complex issues, or to issues that have been deliberately made so complex that most of the American public, including many wealthy folks, can't understand them. The current administration is trying to decide what rules need to be put in place for our TEGWAR game to make the game fairer for the other players. I certainly hope they decide to separate the "Wall Street investment casinos" from the banking business. (Ahh, and likewise with the insurance industry!) And no more of this, "Too big to fail," either! The big boys are going to scream bloody murder even if only very modest changes are proposed, but DON'T be fooled. Forget about all this "socialist" name calling crap. It is a ruse to divert attention from the real issues. Remember too, if you're a Republican, the "trust buster president" was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. Don't let these right wing fanatics drag you along with them in supporting such nonsense, including the repeal of estate taxes on large fortunes.*** By the same token, Democrats can't be shy about questioning proposed changes to make sure they will work, and that they don't overburden business. Don't let the left wing fanatics make you fearful that a business might make five cents on something. If regulations are put in place, but then need to be tweaked, so be it. Don't set your feet in concrete and refuse to act when the need to act is evident. (Actually, this applies to both parties.)

*There was also a television production of the book done in the 1950s, starring then little known actor Paul Newman, a Clevelander.

**It is NOT without reason that I call them, "The sit on their ass class."

***It was a Republican, Herbert Hoover, who felt that great fortunes should not be allowed to be passed on, as they only perpetuate the control of the wealthy. Folks, the wealthy have survived. Income figures for more than three decades show the upper income brackets registering major gains, while many middle class incomes have lost ground or stagnated. If the rich gain, it has to come from someone. Do you want to venture a guess from whom?

WORD HISTORY:
Sty-There are two such words in English, this one, "pen for pigs," comes from Old Germanic "stijan," which had the notion of some type of enclosure, but exactly where Germanic got the word is unknown. Old High German had "stiga," which meant "enclosure for cattle." In Old English is was "stig," which meant "hall, in the sense 'room,' or animal pen." German has "Steige" (also spelled "Stiege," which "might" be from Low German???), which means "crate, carton," with that notion of "enclosure" present in the meaning, and the word also once was used for "animal pen, coop," and "may" still be used that way in some dialects. Other Germanic languages have: Swedish "stia," meaning "pig pen, pig sty," Icelandic "svínastíu," meaning "pig pen" (there may be other forms in Icelandic, but I found this first, just for the sake of example), Danish "sti," meaning "animal pen." I did not find modern forms in Dutch, Frisian, or Norwegian, although it is "possible" there are forms in dialect usage. I also did not find a form in modern Low German, which has no standard language form, but rather a number of dialects, and as I noted above, "Stiege" is a possibility.

Sty #2:
This word for "an inflamed swelling on the eyelid," goes back to Indo European "steigh," which had the notion of "rise, arise and stride forth." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "stig," which meant "swelling." Old English had "stigan" which meant "to rise." Later in English came "styany" (supposedly pronounced like "sty on eye"), a compound word from "styan," meaning "swelling," and "eye." The word is related to modern German "steigen," meaning "to climb, rise," and the German noun "Steige/Stiege," which means, most often (see #1), "stairway, staircase." Other Germanic relatives of English have: Low German Saxon "stiegen" (climb, ascend), West Frisian "stige" (arise, rise), Dutch "stijgen" (rise, ascend, climb), Icelandic "stiga" (walk, step), Swedish "stiga" (climb, rise), Danish "stige" (climb), Norwegian "stige" (rise, ascend).

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Ten

First published September 2012 
See NOTE at bottom of article for update


The Reagan Coalition and the Rise of the American Political Right, Part Two

You can't really understand the election of Ronald Reagan, unless you understand the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter and the nation faced a serious problem over a continuing energy problem, or perhaps it would be better to say, over a lack of energy. Oil and gasoline prices soared, dragging the price of everything else along. The long time Democratic coalition continued its disintegration, and overseas, a fundamentalist Muslim revolution in Iran brought down the American supported government of the Shah of Iran, only to be replaced by a fanatical fundamentalist Muslim cleric, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Iranian students and revolutionaries took over the American embassy in November 1979, along with more than fifty Americans who were held hostage. The crisis had grave consequences, which are still with us today.* As the crisis went on, it was eventually covered by the news media as, "Day 79 of the Iran Hostage Crisis," .... "Day 101 of the Iran Hostage Crisis," .... Day 250 of the Iran Hostage Crisis..." and so on and so on. Americans were angry and frustrated, as no one really knew what to do. After the first couple of months of the crisis, it was revealed that Canada had hidden several American diplomats in their embassy in Iran, eventually granting special "Canadian passports" to the Americans and then flying them out of Iran to safety. All over the United States the announcement was greeted by standing ovations for the Canadians and Canadian flags were displayed and the Canadian national anthem played on radio stations and at sporting events, it was a little victory in a dismal situation, as the actual hostages remained in Iran.

In the midst of all that was going on, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. This prompted President Carter to have the American team boycott the 1980 Olympic Games, which were held in Moscow. It was a decision that brought mixed reviews, as many critics, fairly or unfairly, believed the Olympics should have been free of international politics.** 

President Carter also negotiated a treaty with Panama to turn control of the Panama Canal over to Panama on December 31, 1999, while maintaining the neutrality of the canal, so it could be used by all nations, and giving the U.S. the right to enforce that neutrality. Conservatives exploded, accusing Carter of giving away control of a necessary American shipping passageway to a dictator (which was true, as the ruler of Panama had taken power in an overthrow of the government several years before). The Senate ratified the treaty anyway, but conservatives fumed for years over the loss of what was "like sovereign American territory," as I believe some of them put it, and perhaps even Ronald Reagan said it, I just forget, as he opposed ratification of the treaty.

With inflation a constant problem, and gasoline prices at record highs (the Middle East/Iran situation),*** the economy stumbled along in a period of what was termed "stagflation;" that is, stagnant economic growth, but persistently high inflation which was threatening to climb to double digits. President Carter wore a sweater, told Americans to adjust their thermostats to help control energy costs, and a 55 mph highway speed limit had already gone into effect under President Nixon in 1974. At first, many Americans saw the need for such measures, but Americans were not used to such things, and many people began to resent the conservation measures. In an effort to get control of rising prices and restore economic growth, President Carter, a moderate, appointed Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve Chairman. Volcker began to raise interest rates, but with rate increases came a downturn in economic growth, which brought Carter trouble from labor unions and businesses. The 1980 election season was then underway. 

* The U.S. imposed economic sanctions against Iran back then, which were later intensified over other matters, and these sanctions continue to the present, President Obama having turned the screws even more tightly. The American public was so outraged over the hostage taking (countries had long agreed to the non arrest of foreign diplomatic personnel and to help protect such personnel from harm), that politicians were careful not to be seen as in any way associating with Iran, thus keeping any diplomatic ties from being reestablished, and preventing talks aimed at averting other crises. With no presence in Iran, when the anti-government protests developed there a year or two ago, the U.S. was pretty much out in the cold. Now, the other side of this is certainly true; that is, while Khomeini died in 1989, the religious fundamentalist governmental system he established is still in place, and this government not only allowed American embassy personnel to be held captive, but actively supported it. The problem is, no one, Republican or Democrat, really knows what to do about the situation, in spite of hot-air rhetoric to the contrary. The Middle East has been a powder keg for decades, seemingly waiting for the lit match. The world dependence on oil from the Middle East has given countries there a daunting trump card, as anything that threatens the world oil supply sends oil/gasoline prices skyrocketing, threatening economic turmoil everywhere. 

** In retaliation, the Soviets boycotted the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.   

*** For much of the 1970s gasoline prices were high compared to previous decades, and this was in large part due to the Middle East being so unstable, including war between Israel and Arab nations, and revolution in Iran.

NOTE: The situation with Iran goes far beyond the revolution there and the taking of American hostages in late 1979, but the tensions between many nations, including the U.S., and Iran do trace back to the Iranian Revolution. In more recent times, Iran began research and development in the nuclear field. This brought more sanctions from the U.S. and others. In 2015, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, and several other countries reached an agreement with Iran over nuclear research and sanctions against Iran. 

WORD HISTORY:
Shot-This word, closely related to "shoot," goes back to Indo European "skeud," with the notion of "to project, to throw, to move quickly." This gave its Old Germanic offspring a noun "skot(an)," "something thrown or discharged, the result of shooting." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sceot," with the same meaning, but also "a payment, a contribution" presumably from the notion of "handing over; that is, projecting the payment to another." It had this same ("payment") or similar ("tax") meaning in the other Germanic languages too, but this meaning has died out, except in the expression "scot free;" literally, "payment free," and the original hard "c" or "k" sound is still present, while in "shot" the sound softened. Common in various forms in the other Germanic languages: German has "Schoss," which means "lap (of a person);" that is, "a projection from a sitting person," and also "a young sprout from a plant, for which English uses the related "shoot;" further, German has "Schuss," meaning "shot." Low German Saxon has "Schott" (shot) and "Schoot" (lap of a person). Saterland Frisian has "Schoat" (shot) and "Schoot" (lap); Dutch has "schot" (shot) and "schoot" (lap of a person). Danish has "skud" (shot) and skød (lap); Icelandic has "skot" (shot); Norwegian has "skudd" (shot); Swedish has "skott" (shot). Notice that the North Germanic languages, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish have all retained the "k" sound.

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part 2

This article was first published in late 2011.

From North Africa stretching into the Middle East, protest movements have developed to change the societies in the various nations in these regions. Many of the countries have been ruled by autocratic dynasties or dictators, and much of the wealth has been concentrated in the upper strata of those societies. The protest movements seem not only to want to change the governing style of their nations, but to also make their nations fairer in terms of income distribution. Underlying everything is the desire to have more control of how they are governed. "Freedom" in and of itself does NOT guarantee success, and we will have to see how events develop in these countries over time. Remember, being able to vote in free elections is great, but it does not mean a substantial part of the voting public won't vote for religious radicals, or some other dictator to replace the one they have just ousted. Freedom also does not guarantee economic success. The United States and some other parts of the world are still mired in an economic mess created by too little government regulation, not too much. The prevailing economic/political philosophy of the last thirty some years has been "get government out of the way; government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem; turn people loose to do whatever they want." You are, and have been, witnessing the result of that philosophy.

Part of this "less government" philosophy has been about less power in the federal government, with the desire to see power shifted to the individual states. The overall discussion is worthy, but let's not forget, the Civil War was fought over states' rights, more specifically in those times, a desire to permit slavery to continue. You know, slavery...the owning of one human being by another. Is this God's will? Is this Christian? Is this Judeo-Christian? Is this religious? One of the major points of my series, "The German Question," was, "You can't have a true nation without a strong national government." Again, how strong that government should be is a valid question, but some of the notions proposed by people like nutty Ron Paul is to essentially dismantle the federal government. On the other hand, I also tried to show in that series how a super strong national government (the Nazi era) can be disastrous.

America is moving more and more toward a society totally dominated by the wealthy, a plutocracy. They aren't elected, but they have such huge sums of money, they can convince Eskimos to by ice cream cones. As president, Obama has done little to really take them on. The little he did, or tried to do, brought an immense backlash from the wealthy reactionaries of this country, and their minions in the GOP. If you're going to get lambasted, you may as well go for the whole hog, and not just the curly little tail. He chose not to do that. Instead, he let a discredited (momentarily) group get back up off the floor, and he's been paying the price, and so has the country, ever since.

Make no mistake about it, the wealthy interests run the country. Look at profits. Many companies are doing better than EVER! And we just dodged a depression, and we have yet to really climb out of a damaging recession. Why? Look at prices. For a country with 9% unemployment,* prices are way above what is healthy for the country, but they are sure healthy for rich company owners and investors. They are doing just fine. The price of most things are really controlled by the wealthy. They buy stock and DEMAND that those companies they've invested in make more money, so they'll make more money. They buy futures in things like oil and gasoline, driving up prices, making money there, and forcing prices on EVERYTHING, products and services, higher. They sell products overseas, EVEN OIL AND GASOLINE,** to make big bucks, but prices here rise further due to what they can then claim are "tight markets." The oil companies tell us all the time how they employ people, but they don't say that its the high prices that are strangling many Americans who are paying for this. They put money into some pockets with one hand, and take money out of those same pockets with the other hand. Don't be fooled by all of the nonsense talk and ad campaigns (well, I just said "nonsense talk"). Food prices have always had price swings, but now, with money managing companies and hedge funds, 24/7 monitoring of prices minute by minute, the wealthy can cause prices on certain items to soar almost instantaneously. Once they make a bundle, they get out, and move on to the next victim, like the scavengers many of them are. And they are feeding off of YOU!***

If you consider yourself a Republican, you'd better head to the nearest mirror, look into that mirror, and ask yourself some VERY serious questions. Taking your party back from some of these bizarre nutcases will help the country, trust me.

* I know unemployment just fell to 8.6%, but unless things really pick up, and I seriously doubt that will happen quickly, the rate will go back up, probably to about 8.8%. Of course that's just my guess, but we'll see.

** If you are aware of the big argument over the proposed oil pipeline from Canada through much of the central U.S., no matter what your basic beliefs on the issue, this oil is destined for sale in China, not in the U.S. Of course, the big boys are saying (with some truth) it will help employ some Americans.

*** Weather can certainly affect food prices. This year, some parts of the country had too much rain, while other parts had some of the worst drought conditions on record. Okay, we get it, but with the scenario I described above, prices soar on many items, way above what once happened, and the on top of that, some companies then sell "supposedly scare products" overseas!!! Why? Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!

WORD HISTORY:
Ride-This word "seems" to go back to a possible Indo European "reidh," which meant "to ride, to travel," but please note, besides Germanic, there are connections to Celtic (also with connotations of travel/transport), another branch of Indo European, but that is it, and that is a bit odd for such an important word. Celtic and Germanic had lots of contact in ancient times, and one could have borrowed a form of the word from a non-Indo European source, with the other then borrowing it from them. Of course, both could have borrowed it separately from the same source. What ever the case, Old Germanic had "ridan(an)," with the meaning "to move forward, to travel." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "ridan," meaning "to ride," and this later became "riden," before the modern spelling. Forms are common in the other Germanic languages, except modern Frisian, although Old Frisian had "rida," which has now died out. German has "reiten," Low German Saxon has "rieden," other Low German dialects have "riede," Dutch has "rijden" Icelandic has "ríða," Swedish has "rida," Danish has "ride," and Norwegian has "ri."

The Greed "Gushes" Forth

The greed mongers and egomaniacs are at it again. Oil and gasoline prices have been escalating as they did a few years ago (prices for many things will follow, as virtually EVERYTHING we do is related to oil/gasoline prices). Folks, there is no shortage of oil.* We all know about the unrest in several oil producing countries, and that has become the excuse for the mad rush to make "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!" (Don't forget the schemes they came up with to get "mo' money" in the mortgage game. Probably many of the same people, and certainly people of the same mindset.) Any drop in output from Libya has already been made good, according to cooler heads. No folks, this isn't even about what the free marketers like to call "supply and demand;" nope, it's purely about GREED and about the attempts by some egomaniacs to soothe their troubled minds (VERY TROUBLED, in my opinion, with no way to EVER soothe them-see the Word History below, specifically the modern German word for "greed").

They have been unleashed by the free marketers, and if the situation continues, America will continue its decline from the top perch to where the bird doo doo falls. Make no mistake about it folks, the possibility of American decline will never stop these egomaniacs, in case you think that might happen. No, that would assume some sort of rational behavior, and this ego maniacal behavior is not rational; it exploits. If the United States were on its last leg and was about to topple because of these bastards, they would not stop. That's part of the reason for the "anti-government" campaign we've had for more than thirty years. Without government at some level willing to put a stop to their nonsense, they can do anything they want, without fear of repercussions; and so they have, and so they continue. Unions are one of the last organized forms of resistance to the overall rightward shift in the country. The assault on unions will further weaken opposition to them.

Meanwhile, I sit and watch the country decline, as the money transfers from our pocketbooks into their bank accounts. If you're young, you're probably going to have a hell of a time in your life. If you're older, your kids and grandkids are likely going to struggle in this country, where the top income people have taken over. We've lost our balance.


* For those at the other extreme, gasoline is unlikely to be 99 cents a gallon, unless we kick the oil habit; thus not only bringing prices down (true "supply and demand"), but also ending our involvement in wars (and the tremendous cost in lives and national treasure in those wars) over oil. Do any of you truly believe Americans would have given a good damn about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait more than twenty years ago, if Kuwait didn't have lots of oil? We essentially had little choice; we're stuck. That involvement then led to heavier involvement in 2003, clear up until the present. We're stuck too, if turmoil hits others countries, even if we don't get much, if any, oil from those countries, since the countries who do use that oil will then turn to our suppliers; thus driving up prices. That is, like it or not, supply and demand.


WORD HISTORY:
Greedy/Greed-This goes back to a form of Indo European "gher" (or perhaps "gher-d"), which meant "to want, to long for, to like." This gave Old Germanic the offshoot "graedigaz," which seems to have had the more specific notion of "liking or wanting/desiring food, to be hungry" (hunger implying "craving/desire for food"). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "graedig/gredig," with the idea of "big appetite," and also "desirous/covetous," and eventually "greedy." The spelling later changed to "gredi/gredy," before the modern spelling was adopted. It wasn't until the 1500s that English use of "greed" developed from "greedy." The other Germanic languages with forms of "greedy" are: Dutch has "gretig," Danish and Norwegian have "grådige," Swedish has "girig," Icelandic has "gráðugur." German once had "gratag" for "greedy," and obviously related to our word. Modern German has "Habsucht," from "hab"=have + "sucht"="obsession" (so: "an obsession to have, to possess") and also "Habgier" ("insatiable desire to have") and Dutch, besides "gretig," already mentioned above, has the closely related "hebzucht." Note: "German "Sucht" (and Dutch "zucht") is/are related to English "sick," although its more easily seen in it main form "siech(en)," which means "to be very sick, wasting away." Hm, so in German and Dutch these particular words have greed being connected to sickness. I LIKE IT! Nothing like some truth.

Gas Cramps

I hope you will take a moment to click on the link below and to check out the article. Americans are easily distracted, and the economy, health care reform , the Winter Olympics, and a fresh pot of coffee can divert attention from other important issues. Trust me, oil and gas prices are VERY important, and the price of both played an important role in bringing the economy to its knees; something glossed over because of the magnitude of the housing mess the "wealthy interests" got us into, although not without a lot of help from others. (A Word History is below the link)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/80-barrel-oil-the-billion_b_471008.html

WORD HISTORY:
Duke-This word goes back to Indo European "deuk," which meant "to lead" (in a very broad sense, as for instance, it is also the source of our word "tug," a small boat that pulls; that is, "leads" a larger boat or ship). This gave Latin "dux," which initially meant "military commander," but later also meant the more specific "military leader of a province," and in some cases just "a type of prince or noble who leads a province." (Mussolini took the name "Duce," or "leader," which is a modern Italian form of the word, and combined the meanings of "military leader and governmental leader.") The Latin gave Old French "duc," and this, in turn, gave English "duke" in the 1100s, but at that time it was only used as a title for foreign leaders who already carried that title, and it was not until the 1300s that English began using "duke" as a title for a particular English nobleman.

Will We Let Them Destroy Us?

The serious economic crisis that we have been experiencing didn't just decide to pay us a visit for the hell of it. It happened because of unchecked greed. The philosophy that the best regulation is no regulation came back to bite us on our behinds, and the bite was so severe, we still can't sit comfortably. Government, at whatever level, can't stop human beings from our various desires, but it can put a clamp on how those desires manifest themselves. Libertarians will say that this is stifling freedom, and the wealthy beneficiaries of the "no regulation" philosophy love that kind of talk. The neighborhood burglar would love the repeal of breaking and entering laws, too; after all, those laws are stifling his desires. Of course, there IS a difference. There isn't much of a constituency for burglars, but the wealthy investors of the country have lots of money to toss around to convince the public that if there are laws to control "the sit on their ass class," that this is not in the interest of the average American. I'd say that to a great extent, they have succeeded, even though this nonsense is NOT in the interest of non-rich Americans. Remember folks, the upper level income groups are able to hire the absolute best public relations people in the world. We are bombarded on a daily basis with all sorts of advertisements telling us how one product is better than another. These people know how to make a case, no doubt about it. They are good at what they do, but that doesn't mean they should be left to run over and flatten many other Americans.

The "sit on their ass class" also has the resources to hire the best financial and legal minds in the world to help them with their "desires." With a certain segment, those desires are insatiable. With those less aggressive, they can't let the others get ahead of them, or they will lose status, and thus the merry-go-round continues, but the rest of us are paying the fare. Even if during these last three decades of massive deregulation, the government hadn't been so lax about regulation, it could never have kept up with these folks, as they have people working the system for them 24/7. Government is overwhelmed and so is the public. And don't get the idea that government at some level could pay some of these financial experts lots of money to join in an investigation of the financial system. There would be ads run telling us how our tax money is being spent and wasted on such things, and my guess is, many Americans would agree. As I've said here numerous times, this isn't actually a conspiracy, it is self-interest, and the wealthy KNOW what is in THEIR own interest. Many in the public don't understand, nor do many people want to take the time to understand, the complex nature of the financial system that the "sit on their ass class" has fashioned. The less we know, the better for them. That's why we need strong government regulation and regulators who have the desire to regulate. It may not be perfect, but we've got to get a handle on this situation. Even after this terrible crisis, the rich are still running the country and the "too big to fail" businesses are even bigger.

At a time when the economy is struggling to make a comeback, "the sit on their ass class" has gotten oil and gasoline prices way above what they were just a year ago. They are pushing gas prices toward $3.00 a gallon, and trust me, if we don't do something to stop these greedy bastards, $4.00 and $5.00 a gallon is not far off. That siphons money from the rest of the economy right into the pockets of...I'll give you one guess. These same folks, and people like them, didn't put petroleum products on futures markets because they thought it would help YOU or the country or the world, they did it, just as they did with complicated mortgage investments, to help themselves. With few people to speak up for the rest of the population, they have made a bundle. Many of these same people didn't push for "free trade" because it would help American workers, rather I'd say, just the opposite, they wanted to circumvent American labor. Now, I'm not saying making money is bad, but they have just ramrodded us and stuffed their pockets and bank accounts, using their gains to make more money, while average Americans have been falling behind, some way behind, even after working harder than ever (less pay and benefits for more work).

During the late 1960s and then the 1970s, Americans came to realize that government couldn't do everything that we had come to expect of it. Now Americans must recognize that free markets have the same problem, or will we let them destroy us?

WORD HISTORY:
Simmer-A pretty common word in today's English, but not much is known about it. Prior to the mid-1600s, it was "simperen," or "simber(en);" I found both. Where it came from is unknown, but some speculate that the original word was imitative of the sound of bubbling liquid. By the 1700s, the word also began to be applied to human emotions "being agitated." About a hundred years later, this meaning brought about the opposite meaning of "simmer down;" that is, "get emotions, usually anger, under control." Now this is just MY question: Could it be related to "simper?"

Will The Dems Finally Act?

Regular readers know that I've been preaching here for quite some time about how the country has been taken over by the wealthy business interests in the country. There are many important issues in this country, war and peace certainly being one, but in my opinion, in the end, what will destroy the country is how we deal with the economy and the standard of living for all Americans, not just the rich. The philosophy that spawned the take over by the "interests" was put in place just shy of thirty years ago. In the early Reagan years, many Americans could not have foreseen how the mighty would truly become THE mighty in the country within just a couple of decades. We have two major political parties to help balance things out in how the country operates. During much of the last thirty years many Democrats in Congress supported a lot of conservative policies. I said "many Democrats," but certainly not all. Some of those Dems were so conservative, that they switched parties and became Republicans. Additionally, during his two terms, President Clinton, a Democrat, also signed into law a number of policies that were heavily supported by conservatives in the country, including the repeal of some significant regulation of the banking industry, proposed mainly by then Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas.* So, I'm not just picking on Republicans, but it was their favored philosophy that prevailed for almost thirty years, and it was that philosophy that helped put the country into the predicament it is now in economically.** In essence, however, WE are to blame.

We watched oil and gasoline prices spiral to heights never believed possible. We watched as higher energy prices drove the price of just about everything higher. We watched as the price of many other food products soared, because of "supposed scarcity." We watched the country's wealth dissipate in trade imbalances that boggled the mind. We watched as middle class Americans saw their collective incomes shrink. We watched as Wall Streeters and other wealthy Americans "cleaned up" on high prices for everything, transferring money from OUR pockets into THEIR bank accounts. We watched as Wall Streeters and other wealthy Americans used that money to drive prices even higher, thus perpetuating the transfer of wealth from low and middle income Americans to the very wealthy. We watched as these same greed mongers helped (unwittingly, I'm NOT saying this was a conspiracy) foreign nations, some of them openly hostile to America, reap the benefits of higher oil prices, "fueled," if you'll pardon the expression, by the obsessive greed of our own greediest people. We watched as home prices surged to absurd levels, driven higher by mortgages granted to anyone who had a heartbeat, and maybe even to some who didn't. We watched as people who hated the idea of government, be put in charge of the government! Then these same imbeciles charged that the government doesn't work right! If you ever wanted to know what the Wild West was like, this stuff was pretty much comparable; that is, no law and order, except for the wealthy, who were a law unto themselves.

Now we've had a new President since late January. We've had Democrats in control of the House of Representatives. We've had Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate. So what's been done to change all of the absolute nonsense that had been going on? Ah...NOTHING! Well, I guess there is going to be a policy to cut back on Wall Street bonuses announced some time today, supposedly for one year, but that is insufficient for the magnitude of the problem. The whole system was taken over by wealthy interests. Corporate board members have been as cozy as cucumbers on a vine with CEOs and other corporate officers. These folks approved all of these bonuses and exorbitant salaries. The average shareholder is just like dust on the floor.

We have the greedy back to driving oil and gas higher. Let me tell you, how much do you want to bet that many a Wall Street business is behind that? They'll destroy the country, because they are so obsessed by greed and ego trips that they don't even see how they hurt the country by taking money from the pockets of average Americans AND helping transfer more of our wealth overseas to oil producing countries. I know many people don't agree with me on this at this time, but you watch, if nothing is done, many Americans will be screaming for Uncle Sam to nationalize the oil industry in this country, just to get a handle on the abuses that have gone on. Survival will outweigh all this "socialist" malarkey shouted by some people who don't even see their own self interest. And they are urged on by people who fully understand their own self interest. Can you guess who they are? All of the negative ads appearing on your television screen didn't get there by magic. They were funded by someone. Any attempts to change the system that now favors the "big boys," will face well funded opposition, and you can put that in a Wall Street bank account. (A "Word History" is below the notes)

* Gramm was one of those former Democrats who changed parties.

** Very concisely, but not all inclusive, that philosophy entailed big tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans, free trade policies with countries whose workers earned only a fraction of what American workers made, thus putting our own workers at a serious disadvantage, and the idea of "the best regulation is no regulation." That last notion was in place as the conditions mounted that would cause the economy to melt before the very eyes of those who opposed regulation so much, like Christopher Cox, George W. Bush's head of the Security & Exchange Commission, better known by its initials, SEC, but he was not alone!

WORD HISTORY:
Now-This very common word goes back to Indo European "nu," and meant "at the present time." This gave many of the Indo European dialects (later separate languages) a form of the word, as Sanskrit, an ancient relative of English, had "nu," and Latin had "nunc," and Greek had/has "nun/nyn/nu" (I found three different versions). The Germanic languages also kept a form of the word, and this gave Old English "nu." The other Germanic languages also still have forms: German has "nun," Dutch has "nu/nou," Norwegian has "na," Danish has "nu/na," and Swedish has "nu."

Siphoning Money From Our Gas Tanks

The country remains in what is now being called, "The Great Recession." The price of many things have fallen, largely in an orderly manner; that is, we've not had a panic driven deflation that has sent the economy spiraling into the abyss. Of course, those stalwarts of the "investment industry," better known to me as "the sit on their ass class," have chosen to continue to extract more money from the American economy through higher oil and gasoline prices.

Every dollar siphoned from our pockets into their bank accounts means less for the rest of us to spend on things that might actually help bring the economy back. I've heard it said several times on CNBC* in the past, that for every penny gasoline goes up on an annual basis, it costs American consumers one billion dollars.** I've not heard anyone challenge that info, so I'll take it that it is pretty accurate. The best thing Americans can get out of the greedy bastards is that "it is cheaper than last year." I've been saying for a long, long time here that these greedy egomaniacs will destroy the country, and much of the wreckage is already lying around us. The "investor class" has already helped bring the country to its knees. Do they stop? Hell no! Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo' money!

Now that NASA has bombed the moon to see if there is water there, what we really need for the space agency to do is, find out if there is money either on the moon or on some other planet. If so, they'll be able to sell tickets to our greediest citizens to go there, because there isn't enough money for them on THIS planet! (A "Word History" is below the notes)

* CNBC is a cable business channel owned by NBC Universal.
** Remember, this is on an annual basis.

WORD HISTORY:
Siphon-This word, originally just a noun, traces back to Greek "siphon," which meant "tube or pipe." Greek is an Indo European language related to English, but further down the "family tree," although many words, or root words in English, and indeed in many of the Indo European languages, have come from Greek, albeit at times via Latin, or a Latin based language. From what I can find, linguists haven't been able to trace "siphon" back to some Indo European, or other, base, up to this point in time. Latin picked up the word from Greek as "sipho," as the singular form, with a long "i" sound and a long "o" sound. Latin is another Indo European language, likewise related to English further down the "family tree." French, a Latin based language, continued with "siphon," and English seemingly acquired the word from French at some point, perhaps in the 1500s or most definitely by the 1600s. During the mid 1800s, a verb form seems to have emerged from the noun, with the meaning "drawing in or expelling liquid through a tube" (often used in reference to some sea creatures with such tubes), but apparently it wasn't until World War Two that the idea of "diverting a liquid (gasoline) from one container (gas tank) to another container (a gas can) by way of a tube," developed.

Greed Has No Conscience

The greedy bastards are right back at it, folks! Oil and gasoline are soaring, just as if we've learned nothing about the economic mess we plunged into. The self-centered, egomaniacs will do anything and everything to get that money, even though they already have plenty. Then, I'm sure, they'll turn around and whine about their taxes going up 3% and perhaps having to live by some rules and regulations of the "free markets," which is a term they choose to use so they can gouge us at every turn; all the while cutting workers pay and/or benefits. The income gap in America didn't get to be the way it is because things are fair to middle and lower income Americans. If the Obama Administration allows this crap to start all over, then they'll go the way of Bush and his minions. And they deserve it! They need to take a stand now, before this all heads off any chance for an economic recovery.

I'm not saying that 99 cent a gallon gasoline should prevail, but what these people already did to us should serve as a reminder as to what they will do again, if left unchecked. If all the millions and millions of dollars in bonuses made you angry, then you need to focus on what's happening NOW! Don't let the economic downturn, or Pakistan, or health care, or any other issues distract you from the doings of these ever greedy bastards!*** Write a letter or send an email to your congressional representative and your senators, as well as to the White House.

In the past year, we've heard consideration of nationalizing banks, insurance companies and auto companies (taxpayers already own like 75-80% of insurance company, AIG, and varying percentages of some banks, with auto companies to follow, but these are "probably" temporary measures, and should be such). What really needs to be nationalized are ENERGY products!!! We've still got all of these vital products in the hands of the greedy, and the greedy have no conscience. They'll further ruin the country for their own interests.

*** I'm NOT saying that these issues and others aren't important, they most certainly are important.

Word History:
Big-While this is an extremely common word today, it only seems to have come into English usage during the 1300s, and this was in the dialects of northern England where there was much influence from Old Norse, a North Germanic language, leading many linguists to believe it was brought to England by the Danes, and some linguists feel there is a connection to the Norwegian dialect word "bugge," meaning "great or important man;" however, the other Germanic languages do not have any known forms of the word. Gradually the word moved south across England. No other reliable information is available on the origins of "big." Initially, the word meant "powerful, strong." The notion of being "strong" or "powerful" progressed to the meaning of "large" by the latter part of the 1300s. Just a little note, "bigwig" came from the notion of the large wigs worn by important men in England.

Oil Speculators Dominate

Well, the Bush Administration has long insisted that speculators are NOT a big part of the oil market. Now, the regulatory (cough, cough) agency concerned with the oil markets says otherwise. Finally there's an admission that oil contracts are in the hands of the very few. I think most people aren't terribly stunned to hear this news, as we aren't as dumb as some think we are.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26321642/

The Government & The Economy

If you haven't seen the previous blog on the subject, see:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/08/government-intervention-in-free-market.html

This is sort of a "Part Two" to the above. Now, having given the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve a pat on the back, I now must give a more scathing view of their action, or inaction, but first, a short preface.

Many people are skeptical of politicians, and with good reason. There's nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism about anything in and around our lives. The problem for us becomes when politicians switch positions on a given issue, or at least seem to do so. Did they change to get votes, or did they really change out of conviction? We're often not sure, but just as often, our answer to that question probably mirrors our political views. If a politician swears by chocolate ice cream, but then changes to vanilla ice cream, if you like chocolate, you may well feel that this politician is pandering to the vanilla vote. If you like chocolate, you welcome a new convert. There isn't a really good answer to the question, but hopefully we try to decide these things on an individual basis, and get some info on the particular subject and the politician involved. We're in an election year, when all such things are intensified, but I hate to think that a politician of either party must always hold to some idea and never change or modify their position without being called a "flip-flopper." On the other hand, there are some blatant changes that go on which only concern politics, but we always have to keep in mind that this is part of the "genius" of our system. Politicians tend to want to get on the side of the bulk of the electorate, and that makes our system go.

Now, having muddied the waters... I mean having gotten that out of the way, there are certainly some valid criticisms of the recent government involvement in the economy. The administration did little to help anyone early on in the current crisis. Their "free market" mantra led them to utter statements about how if you buy a home and can't pay, tough sh... ah, luck. Then the chickens came home to roost, as the banks and mortgage companies began to reap what they had sown, and losses on their balance sheets mounted. Now, this was something the Bush Administration could understand, the plight of millionaires. When banks were threatened with insolvency, the administration quickly got off of their butts and just as quickly forgot about their own "free market" crap.. I mean positions. The pro-business, free market mantra is, "If you take whatever action, then you have to bear the consequences or the benefits." So, if banker XYZ lends Joe Shmo 200 grand to buy a house, and old Joe makes $8.50 an hour and he can't pay the mortgage, banker XYZ takes a hit. With this administration, when Joe Shmo couldn't pay, they didn't give a damn, but as soon as Joe's loss hurt banker XYZ, they sprang into action.

Now, I'm not ideological on this, as I think, as distasteful as it is, banker XYZ had to be helped, for fear that the whole system could come tumbling down. Don't forget, it really isn't just banker XYZ, but many, many bankers in trouble, and this crisis doesn't appear to be over yet, but as the article (with link in part one) notes, the administration favored helping bankers, but when Congress added help for homeowners, they balked, until political reality set in, and they went along, although reluctantly. So what does this mean? To the Bush Administration, if you're a banker and you gave that loan to Joe Shmo (even if you knew, or should have known that Joe couldn't afford it), you should be protected against Joe's default on the loan. If you're Joe Shmo, "The hell with you!"

As the crisis deepened and the government took stronger actions, thus increasing government power, the administration spokespeople kept spouting the free market nonsense, and acting as if they really believed in it, in spite of the actions they were taking. It has been much the same with oil/gasoline prices. When the cry went out to curtail speculators in the oil and gasoline markets, the administration spokespeople, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson, said that there really wasn't much speculation causing prices to soar, it was just the free market setting the price, which was another flight from reality by this bunch. Now, in the last couple of weeks, as oil and gas prices have plummeted, it has been noted that speculators have been fleeing the oil markets. I thought speculators weren't the problem? You can't have it both ways!!! (Note that just because oil has fallen in price, don't get too gleeful as yet, as we will have to see what happens in the longer term.)

The Ill Winds Of Hurricane Dolly & Speculators

I've never been through a hurricane, at least not the weather type, anyway. As "Hurricane Dolly" approaches American shores, some may say, "well, its only a minimal hurricane." Hey, hurricanes are dangerous storms, no matter the category. I think at times how bad a storm is here in Cleveland when the winds gust at 50 or 60 miles an hour. Even a "minimal" hurricane has winds of 74 miles an hour, and those are SUSTAINED winds, not gusts. In fact, gusts may clock in 80 to 100 miles an hour. The high surf, for those near the shore, can be deadly, and certainly destructive to property. The heavy rain can cause terrible flooding, even far inland. So don't write off category one hurricanes like they're a spring shower. I hope all those in the path of "Hurricane Dolly" will be safe, including those on the Mexican side of the border.

As the reports of this growing storm were released, the price of oil and gasoline headed higher. Why? The more honest among the oil/gas speculators came right and said how they figured the storm would hit the oil and gasoline region in southern Texas, and that they hoped this would turn oil and gasoline prices around from their fall of the last few days. Only a bunch of greedy, no good bastards would wish such a thing on their fellow human beings just for money. To be perfectly honest, I wish we could round up these good for nothings and tie them down on the shores of southern Texas and let them see what a hurricane REALLY means. I make NO apologies for my feelings! How disappointed they were when they found out that the storm was expected to miss the oil and gas areas, and so prices came back down. What a shame!

Are They Drilling Enough For Oil Now?

Here's a link to an article about charges traded back and forth between President Bush and Congress, more specifically Democrats in Congress, about drilling for more oil. I can't say that I know enough about the specifics to offer an informed opinion. I do know there have been "charges" (not saying whether they are true or false, or mixed) leveled by some that the oil companies have not been wearing themselves out trying to find oil in American territory, but rather that they have taken large sums of their huge profits and paid them out to investors, many of these investors being some of the richest people on Mother Earth. In an attempt to be fair here, some of the folks questioning the policies of the oil companies are not exactly left wing fanatics, but are some of the folks I've seen on CNBC, a cable business channel. When oil prices were like $75 or $80 a barrel, what now seems like bargain prices, some of the CNBC folks were asking like, "Where are all the oil rigs. The oil execs said that a lot of oil wasn't worth trying to get, because prices were too low (obviously in past years). They can't say that now."

I do like the idea proposed by Democrats (according to this article) about passing legislation requiring the oil companies to drill for oil on lands to which they already have lease agreements. Big oil needs to put up or shut up. Americans are not unreasonable, in my opinion. If we see the need to extend leases to new areas, we'll do it, I'm sure, especially if we have the proper information about the process and any environmental dangers to the areas involved.

ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25653628/

A Few Things On Oil And Speculators

A number of weeks ago, the president visited Saudi Arabia. Upon his departure for the Saudi Kingdom, he told us that he was going to ask the Saudis to increase oil production because of the high oil prices. Essentially, the Saudis turned him down in a very public way. The interesting thing is, after more than seven years in office, this administration and this president haven't learned that these things aren't handled in public until the deal has already been done behind the scenes. The rebuff to Bush by the Saudis didn't hurt him the American public opinion polls, but that seems to be the likely result that he can't go much lower, as his poll numbers are and have been "cold enough" to make ice cubes; that is, they are well below the freezing temperature of 32. I would have to believe that it has hurt him and American foreign policy, as foreign governments take note of these kinds of things.

The Saudis have insisted that the supply of oil on the market is adequate and that speculators have been driving up the price, not the more common excuse... ah... I mean reason of supply and demand. Last week on CNBC (a cable business channel), there was an analyst on about the whole oil situation. I just forget the company he represents, but his basic comments were that oil prices are NOT being determined by supply and demand, and that there are full oil tankers "clogging" (his word) the waterways around the Middle East, because there are NO buyers for that oil. Now, maybe the guy is nuts, but I didn't hear anyone call his hand on that statement. As much as I hate to say it, this seems to jive with what the Saudis have been saying. The Saudis have been under tremendous pressure from a great number of countries, not just the United States, feeling the severe pinch of high oil and gasoline prices (if reports are to be believed, and common sense tells us that there must be a great deal of truth to the reports). Now, this past weekend, there was a big powwow in Saudi Arabia, but the result was much the same; that is, the Saudis blame the tremendous increase in oil prices (about double what they were last year) on speculators, and they promised to increase production by a scant 200,000 barrels a day, "IF" their customers ask for it.

To me, one of the major problems has been that the Bush Administration, the defenders of the wealthy and business interests, has refused to admit the speculators are part of the problem. This bunch NEVER met a millionaire, or better yet, a billionaire they didn't like; oh hell, I mean LOVE!!! Even some Republicans in Congress are screaming for the administration to get its head out of the sand and to take action to limit the damage being done by these greedy bastards, part of the "sit on their ass class." If I had my way, they'd all have to work for $8.00 an hour, with no medical insurance, and limited benefits. They be out digging ditches, paving roads, working in factories (what we have left, anyway!), running cash registers, stocking shelves, delivering furniture, waiting on tables, manning security desks, tending to sick patients, oh well, you get the point. Once they get a taste of what they've done to so many others, and what it means to REALLY have to work to earn other people BIG BUCKS, do you think it MIGHT sink in? Don't answer too quickly....

Oil Speculation

Here is the link to a good article about what might or might not happen in the halls of Congress about the rising price of oil. To be quite honest, since taking control of Congress in the '06 elections, Democrats have been timid to act, in my opinion. They grumble, but that's been pretty much it. Republican members of Congress, terrified about their current prospects for coming election, might well join Democrats in actually DOING SOMETHING! I think the American people are FAR ahead of their leaders on these things, and in the actions we would support. We aren't stupid! Don't forget, if wealthy interests can drive up the cost of oil, then they also benefit on their gasoline futures' contracts, as gasoline is then bound to go up, since oil is the main ingredient in gasoline. If there were a "bread" futures market, if you can get the price of flour way up, bread has to increase too. (By the way, the price of wheat is WAY up, and thus so is the price of flour. See how it works?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25253877/

Alls Not "Well" With Oil

The U.S. Government, headed by George Bush, who just a couple of months ago said he didn't know that gasoline prices might go to $4.00 a gallon, has finally started to get its head of out the sand and DO something. The cooperation of the British is a good sign.

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSSP23289620080530

First Impressions Of CNBC Show

For those who watched the CNBC special about oil and gasoline, I've got to say that my first impression was that it was very balanced, maybe even tilted more to the "un-rich" point of view (If I'm right on this, then it tells me that even those with a pro-business bias are now getting terrified about what these bastards are doing to us!). I recorded the show on my DVR, so I'll have to watch it again and refine my thoughts on the show. Of course, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson gave the Bush Administration's usual pro-business, pro-wealthy, free market point of view. He left out "Hurray for the free markets and the hell with the rest of you!"

You've Spent Your Stimulus Check

I assume that the vast majority of Americans have not yet received their "stimulus" checks from the government. In case you don't know it, you've already spent, or allocated, the money. It wasn't by magic, unless you attribute "magic" to the "sorcerers of greed" within those bastions of Wall Street wherein the "sit on their ass class" work diligently to connive to get every penny they can get from us.

Tonight, Thursday, May 22 at 8 P.M., CNBC is broadcasting a special to tell us just how bad things are with oil and gasoline and how much worse things could get. "Supposedly" they're going to tell us why we are, where we are on oil prices right now. CNBC is a cable business station, and the main viewers are those I've just mentioned in "Paragraph One," above, so I must confess, with the likes of those "humans" (and I use the term very lightly) being their constituents, I don't place must trust in what might be said, but it might well be worth watching.