PBS Series, "The Roosevelts," Shows Us What We Need

Ken Burns' wonderful series on PBS about Teddy, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt pointed to one of the things we all need to think about  ... helping others. The Roosevelts didn't have to worry about money for their next meal, and they could have gone through life piling up money and concerning themselves solely with their own lives, especially Franklin, who had been left badly crippled by polio when he was only 39. Instead, the three Roosevelts chose to try to help others and, thus, their nation. They all took abuse from the forces of greed, selfishness and hate aligned against them, but they persevered, and the United States is a far better place for their having lived. Like all of us, the Roosevelts weren't perfect, but their faults paled in comparison to the good things they did, or helped to bring about.

Now in our modern times, when the lives of those three Roosevelts were extinguished long ago, their legacies are seriously under attack, perhaps more than when they were alive and working to attain the things that have had them seen as a great part of American history. At least they were able to fight for and defend their ideas back in their respective lifetimes, but now it is up to us to speak for them and to do battle with the same forces of greed, selfishness and hate they combated. The faces of these opponents may have changed, but the dark souls are still the same as those of more than a hundred years ago, when Teddy Roosevelt led major efforts to break up large corporations, and the concentrated wealth and power of those corporations, and to ban corporate money from elections. They are the same dark souls battled by Franklin Roosevelt during his efforts to help the nation recover from its worse economic calamity ever, and to provide rights, assistance and some sense of income security and dignity to America's workers, poor and elderly. They are the same dark souls who detested Eleanor Roosevelt for her championing of the rights of black Americans and for all poor Americans, and for providing a shining example to the nation's women by daring to be a leader and a spokesperson for a number of causes, and demonstrating to men that women could be leaders too, and that America's women would be taking on new roles in American life, roles long the exclusive preserves of men.

My father was a staunch Republican, but toward the end of his life in the late 1990s, he began to soften his support for the GOP. The Republican takeover of Congress during the 1994 election showed him how some of the GOP policies were not being pushed to help people like him. He also had a simultaneous softening toward Democrats,* so much so, that he related a story to me he had never before mentioned. I can't remember all of the details, but his grandmother was elderly and ill and she had some kind of application in for assistance, and I'm not even sure it was some federal assistance. My great grandfather had died during the mid 1930s, and he had spent his life working in coalmines, so it might have had to do with his former work, as Eleanor Roosevelt took up the cause of coal miners and their families. In those times, Social Security had just started, and if the breadwinner of a family died, usually the husband back then, the family or surviving spouse was apt to be destitute, even in old age. Well my dad was serving in the Pacific during World War Two, and his grandmother couldn't finalize what ever this matter was, so he wrote a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt explaining the situation. He said Mrs. Roosevelt took up my great grandmother's cause and helped to resolve it. To this day, I believe he had never mentioned the story up to that point, because he didn't want to say that he had sought help from a Democrat, and GOT IT!

We sure need some modern Roosevelts. Where are they?

* He even told me he didn't like the Republican attempts to oust President Bill Clinton from office with the impeachment and trial they were pursuing at that time, a statement which nearly saw me fall off of my chair.

WORD HISTORY:
Watch-This word is closely related to "wake" (not the water disturbance type) and "awaken;" in fact, I suppose you could say "watch" and "wake" are really the same word; at least long ago that was true, and the forms are difficult to separate, so I'll try to keep it as relevant as possible to just "watch." Both the noun and verb forms come from the same source. The word goes back to Indo European "weg/wek," which had the notion of "be active, lively." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wakojana(n)/wakjana(n), with the meaning, "to wake up, to awaken, to be awake," as well as the extended meaning "be awake for the purpose of guarding." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "waecce," the noun form, meaning, "a watch, a vigil," from the idea of "remaining awake, being awake and on guard." This then became "wacche," before the modern form. "Apparently" the later additional meaning of "small implement to keep time" seems to have developed in the 1400s from the notion of it "waking" you, not because you "watch" or look at it. Again, you must remember, the actual meaning of the word had to do with "wake, awake, awaken," and its German relative for an alarm clock is a "Wecker," literally a "waker." The Old Germanic forms also gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the verb form "waeccan," meaning "to wake," with the secondary "to watch." This then became "wacchen," before the modern form. Just as "watch" and "wake" are closely linked in English, the same is often true in the other Germanic languages, making it very difficult to list the various forms, so I'm going to keep this very limited to forms that are more pointed to "watch," even though they may also have meanings related to "wake," but many forms in the other Germanic languages have to do with the meaning "wake." German has the noun "Wache" (all German nouns are capitalized), which means "guard duty" (see also with Dutch and Low German below) and German "Wächter," means "watchman," as does German "Wachmann" (which in some regions also meant "policeman," although I believe that meaning is now rare). German also has the verb "wachen," which means "to be awake" (a meaning not as common nowadays), but like its English cousin also "to keep watch" (also not as common anymore). German, Low German and Dutch have the noun "wacht," meaning "guard duty," and Dutch has the verb "waken," meaning "to watch," but also " to wake." West Frisian has "(be)weitser," meaning "watchman," and "(be)weitsje," meaning "to guard, to watch." Forms in the other Germanic languages relate to the "wake'' meaning.  

Obama Creates Bipartisanship

Unless you have been visiting another planet lately, you know the country is in the midst of a major discussion about taking action against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. President Barack Obama recently  came out in favor of the action, after he was convinced that Assad had used chemical weapons on his opponents in Syria, where there has been an ongoing civil war for about two years now. The whole situation has turned American politics on its head, as the President's decision has created bipartisanship the likes of which we have not seen since near the end of the Bush administration, as the economic meltdown brought people from both parties together. The thing is, this time, it has created a divide in both political parties, as some Democrats have joined some Republicans (we'll know how many of each officially very soon) to support the action, and some Democrats have joined some Republicans to oppose the action. Polls show Americans against the action by a substantial margin, and members of both houses of Congress say calls and emails to their offices are also running heavily against involvement in the conflict.

This President has a terrible habit of handing his opponents, both domestic and international, issues to use  against him, and he has gotten himself into a terrible situation, and it's HIS fault, no one else's, regardless of the talk where he indicated the world had drawn a red line in any country's use of chemical weapons. Did he consult with "the rest of the world" to get them to commit to the action they agreed to take in a hypothetical situation?  The answer appears to be "no," or if he did consult with them, he apparently didn't like their answers and he made pronouncements about Assad having crossed a red line and that action would be taken by the United States. It is important to note, the British Parliament just recently voted against Britain's involvement in this action, even though British Prime Minister David Cameron supported the President's position. The President then decided to get the approval of Congress, which, unless I miss my guess, he will not get, and he will face the fallout from it, which has the potential to be substantial, both at home and abroad. On the other hand, to go forward with military action, with or without the approval of Congress, will also bring fallout, both domestically and internationally, as he and Congress will be going against both American and world public opinion in a major way; it's called "lose, lose." He can't back away, because his ego won't let him, nor will the political situation he has created with his position, but he's damaged himself regardless of what now happens. Poor judgment on his part from the very start.

The evidence against Assad is all circumstantial, at least at this point, and much is based upon intelligence, a device severely tainted by the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to argue for an invasion of Iraq, a conflict which brought thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions in expenditures to America, whose citizens were never asked to pay (in money) for the war. What was not paid for in money, was paid for in lives and suffering of our wounded, and in the suffering to the families who suffered losses of life and limb.

 To further add to this current terrible situation, Secretary of State John Kerry has said there is no major Al Qaeda presence among Assad's opponents, a comment that seems highly suspect to me. This also brought Russian leader Vladimir Putin to publicly call Kerry "a liar." Now to be fair, Putin, while friendly with former President George W. Bush, seemingly can't stand President Obama, but Obama did stick his finger in Putin's eye (symbolically) early on after taking office.* Putin's ego stretches somewhere from Moscow to the furthest part of Siberia, so he didn't laugh off Obama's comments about him. Further, Russia has been a close ally of Syria for some time, giving Putin at least the chance to make mischief with Obama's plans for Syria, while he watches the President twitch in discomfort and face a likely meltdown of his presidency.

Then of course there's Republican Senator John McCain, who is holding the President's feet to the fire for strong action in Syria, and who has been itching to get the U.S. militarily involved in Syria for a couple of years, but then again, McCain pretty much wants America militarily involved on much of the planet, including I believe at the North Pole; after all, Santa does wear a red suit, and may be a communist, although he's definitely a socialist. Hey, he comes down chimneys and leaves free toys for kids. Now what kind of an example is that? These kids will grow up thinking you can get stuff for free, or at least for only a glass of milk, a cookie, and a few lumps of sugar for some reindeer. That's enough to get a military commitment to put "boots on the ground," or "on the snow," against Santa from John McCain.

The President and supporters have been making moral arguments about Assad and chemical weapons; and there's something to be said for that (if the intelligence is correct), BUT moral battles also have to be realistic, and this battle is not realistic.  

* In the months after his election in 2008, Obama commented (in so many words) that Putin was too stuck in the past, alluding to Putin's service as a fairly high ranking officer in the "KGB," the Soviet secret police during Communist rule. 

WORD HISTORY:
Utter-English has two words "utter;" one used as an adjective to mean "total" (as in, "utter chaos broke out"), and the other used as a verb to mean "to speak, to use the voice in some manner" ^ (as in, "The delirious woman uttered a few things"), but both words come from the same ultimate source. They go back to Indo European "ud," which meant "up, out." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ut," which then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "ut," which then later became modern "out." Old Germanic "ut" developed "utizon" as the comparative form, to mean "outer, furthest outside." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "utera," with that same meaning, and the notion of "furthest outside" brought about the figurative meaning   "total." Of course, the same form also gave modern English "outer." Other forms in Germanic (they all mean 'outer'): German has "äusser," Low German "uter," Dutch "uiter," Danish "ydre," Icelandic "ytri," Norwegian "ytre," and Swedish "yttre." Apparently Frisian no longer uses a form. Utter, the verb meaning "to use the voice," also goes back to Indo European "ud" (up, out), and this then gave Old Germanic "ut." This then gave Old English "útian," which meant "to expel, put out from land," a form which seems to mirror the then Low German "utern" and "uteren" in High German, both of which seem to have meant "express something, speak out, demonstrate/reveal something." The Old English form produced a later "outen," which meant "to reveal, disclose," and the Low German form apparently was borrowed in the 1300s or early 1400s and fused with the English form for "utter." Modern German has "äussern" (to express) and Low German has "ütern" (to express).

^ The verb also is used in law, most commonly to describe the passing of forged checks.  

The Economic Philosophies Do Battle

There are deep, emotional and opposing philosophical beliefs by many an American about our economic system. "Generally," the political right says the system is just dandy, that only the private sector can do things efficiently, that government is the enemy (except in military matters), that the free markets are supreme and never wrong, and that giving money to the country's wealthiest people via tax cuts will help everyone. The political left is "generally" against all of the above, to put it simply, calling tax cuts to the wealthy "trickle down economics," and generally supporting government intervention during downturns, and supporting government aid to help level the playing field and give a helping hand up for those not born into wealth, and to help those damaged by the sharp edges of capitalism. My "guess" is, most Americans hold opinions "somewhere in the middle" of all of this, with their opinions about specific aspects of the American economic system often colored by their own experiences, and also likely being at times contradictory. I also "assume" some Americans swing back and forth, depending upon the political winds, but again more likely swayed by their own perceived sense of how things are going for themselves and for the country at any given moment. These are the people who generally determine the outcome of national elections. During the self centered individualism of the 1920s, these kinds of folks leaned toward the more conservative pro-business approach mentioned above, and they voted Republican.* When that system imploded, bringing about the Great Depression, many of these people turned with a vengeance on their own previously held beliefs. Not only did they vote Democratic, but they helped to make the general liberal-progressive philosophy the dominant political philosophy of the country for decades, as the economic collapse showed them how we need each other, and how government can help, although sometimes imperfectly. Throughout that progressive era, the rich were still the rich and they did just fine.

For more than three decades now the country has moved in the direction essentially favored by those on the political right. I think it's a fair assumption to say that even many on the political right have a feeling the country has been going downhill. Part of the rationale for the Tea Party was that the country had to be righted (no pun intended). The funny thing was, many in the Tea Party blamed the newly elected Barack Obama as the culprit, rather than to look back at how wealth has ascended to the top in record amounts. You can like Obama, or not like Obama, but to act as if the country's problems all began when he took office is not only unfair, it's living in serious denial. They never admit that the economic philosophy they've supported has anything to do with the nation's decline. No, they're looking for scapegoats. Scapegoats who will give them a chance to keep from looking at themselves and at the ideas they've supported, because that's just too scary to face. Many arguments are not easily refuted until they have been tested, and the trickle down economics of the last few decades has had more than its day in court. It doesn't work, except for the upper incomes, where the richest 400 now control more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans; that is, almost half of the country.

Throughout the trickle down era there has been a war on government, and that's no coincidence, because the greediest of the superegos are far more fearful of what government CAN do, than what it can't do, when it comes to their self interest. The removal of regulations, tepid enforcement of existing regulations, one-sided trade deals, tax cuts heavily weighted to top earners, all combined to put many Americans in a stagnant income period, at best (in actual purchasing power), and many have not been "so lucky," as their incomes have actually fallen. We need regulation and adequate tax policy before the egomaniacs among the wealthy destroy all of us, a feat some nearly accomplished just a few short years ago, and from which we still have not fully recovered, although they have done VERY well in the same time frame. If you're further out on the left, these kinds of changes will not be adequate for you, but it's good to remember, progress is generally slow, and progressives need to start making progress on economic matters. Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to derail change, that's what conservatism does. It's also good to keep in mind, America's original conservatives in the era when the colonies moved toward independence, favored rule by England, but once independence was gained, conservatives joined in.

Coming soon; in fact, maybe next, I'll have some support for the wealthy, but I doubt conservatives will like it anyway.  

* While the two major political parties have changed dramatically since the 1920s, the post-Teddy Roosevelt Republicans moved much more toward pro-business stances, although in those times labor unions often supported the GOP, and black Americans were nearly 100% Republican. The Great Depression turned the tables so much and gave Democrats such a leg up, the Republicans had little room on the political spectrum to maneuver. They ever so gradually began their march to where they are today on the political right, with really no "liberal Republicans," a once common element of the GOP, and with moderately conservative members seemingly intimidated by vocal right wing activists. The party has moved so far to the right, former moderate Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George Bush Sr. rarely, if ever, even get a mention by today's Republicans (some Democrats mention them more favorably than Republicans); and, even Ronald Reagan's conservative credentials have been questioned by some on the right who have said he was "too moderate." Of course the pro-business and pro-wealthy tax cuts and other such policies of George W. Bush get a thumbs up from Republicans, but they rarely mention him either, as it's tough to criticize Obama and Democrats for bank and auto company bailouts, when it was Bush who started these programs (see note at end of this paragraph). Then too, federal deficits exploded under Bush, as a combination of tax cuts, unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare expansion, unfunded homeland security, stagnant wages for many, lower wages for some (less tax revenue), and a later imploding economy saw the deficit soar to about 1.4 trillion dollars when Bush left office. (Note: The bailouts by Bush are to his credit, in my opinion, and Democrats can't have it both ways either, supporting Obama's moves in these matters, but denouncing Bush's. There most certainly needed to be "conditions" on the bailouts, but without the overall bailouts, we likely would have suffered a far worse collapse on the order of the 1930s. Bush was slow coming to the ballgame, always having touted "free markets," but in the end, he stepped up to the plate, with several Republicans in Congress voting against his proposals.)

WORD HISTORY:
Who-This common word goes back to Indo European "kwis/kwos," with the meanings "who," "which," "what," depending upon usage, with variations in pronunciation for usage also. This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hwas/hwos" (as the "kw" had softened to "hw") with the same meanings, but also "how," and again with spelling/pronunciation variations depending upon usage. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which meant "who." This eventually evolved into modern "who." The variant spellings/pronunciations mentioned above evolved into modern English "whom" (for the object) and "whose" (for possessive or the genitive), while other forms evolved into "how," "where," "why," "which," and "what." Because of the wide number of variations, it is sometimes difficult to see the relationship of these numerous English words to each other, let alone to their Germanic cousins, but here they are for "who," and they all are from the same source as the English word: German and Low German Saxon have "wer," Dutch has "wie,"^ Frisian has "wa," Danish has "hvo," Norwegian has "hvem," Swedish has "vem," and Icelandic has "hver."

^ In German "wie" means "how."     

Why 2010 Was Such An Important Election

First published in May 2013

Republicans have lost the last two presidential elections by fairly large margins, but in between they won a major victory by taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, an election which also saw the GOP whittle down the Democratic majority in the Senate. Not only that, Republicans won several key governorships and took control of many more state legislative chambers, giving Republicans the most seats they've held in state legislatures since the 1920s!* This was immensely important, because it gave Republicans control of many states for the all important redistricting for the House of Representatives and state legislative districts based upon the 2010 census.With Republicans redrawing boundaries, they were able to cement some Republican leaning districts into strong or stronger Republican districts, tilt some highly competitive districts Republican, and weaken some Democratic leaning districts.** This favorable redrawing of boundaries is called "gerrymandering," and it is not just a Republican device, as Democrats use it too,*** and it is highly effective, even though on occasion the "non favored" party candidate may win in a gerrymandered district, that person will have to carefully watch his/her votes on key issues, lest they antagonize the voters of their district, the majority of whom usually favor the opposite party. George Voinovich, a Republican, was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives and Mayor of Cleveland in overwhelmingly Democratic territory, but he was not an extremist and he was more than willing to work with Democrats. As mayor, Voinovich relied upon the president of city council, George Forbes, a staunch Democrat, to help achieve much of his agenda. In the case of both men, they worked for what they thought would benefit the city, not their respective political parties.

Of course strong one party control of districts, or even of states in the case of senators or presidents, can allow the favored party officeholder to adamantly oppose the other party. After Republicans took a beating in congressional elections in 2006 and 2008, the remaining senators and representatives were often in pretty safe states or districts, allowing them much latitude in their criticism of President Obama, and Democrats in general, and as we've seen, they even refused to negotiate with Democrats, preferring to block as much legislation as possible. For many of these Republicans there is no downside to this, at least at the moment.

In the 2012 election, Democrats scored heavily, even garnering nearly a million and a half more votes in House races than the Republican majority. Still Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives, although by a narrower majority. In the House, legislation only requires a majority, unlike in the Senate, where by its own rules, legislation (with some exceptions) needs a minimum of 60 votes (the Senate has 100 members, the House 435 members). At this time in the Senate, Democrats hold 53 seats, independents hold two seats, both of whom caucus with the Democrats, and Republicans hold 45 seats. In the House, Republicans hold 233 seats, Democrats hold 201 seats, and there is one vacant seat in Missouri (vacated by a Republican) scheduled to be filled in a special election, with the Republican candidate heavily favored.

While all elections are important, elections held in the year of a census and then two years later (after new district boundaries are drawn) are critical to how the House of Representatives will likely set up for a decade. This also is true for legislative seats in state legislatures. While Democrats scored a major victory in 2012 and they drew far more votes in House races (collectively), they still could not overturn the Republican House majority, mainly because of redistricting.

Going back decades, Republicans "tend" to be more in accord over major issues, although they have marched from being just conservative a few decades ago, to very conservative now. Democrats have always been more divided, although they too are more similar in many views today than they were in the past. Part of this is because the once "solidly Democratic South," a generally conservative area, has switched to become much more Republican,**** leaving Democrats with much more of a progressive side. Further, liberal/progressive Republicans are virtually unheard of today, whereas they once formed a major part of the GOP. Some of these people became Democrats (see note ****), others became independents. For Democrats to win control of the House, they will need to win in many more conservative tilting or outright conservative districts. That means they will need right-leaning candidates to win in these areas, something "true believing" progressive Democrats may have a problem with. With more conservative districts on the election map now, Republicans, on the other hand, don't have to worry much about unseating Democrats in progressive-leaning districts with what the "true believing" Republicans contemptuously call "RINO" candidates; that is, "R(epublican) I(n) N(ame) O(nly)." So, barring some major event that shakes up the electorate, Republicans will be very difficult to dislodge from control of the House of Representatives. That's why 2010 was so important. 

* Democrats took five governorships away from Republican control, but Republicans took eleven governorships from Democratic control. In addition, Republican turned independent Lincoln Chafee took the governorship of Rhode Island from Republican control. Chafee, while an independent, has leaned toward Democratic and progressive ideas. In a sense, Republicans also retained control of the statehouse in Florida, where Charlie Crist had been elected as a Republican, only to become an independent (he has since become a Democrat). If my numbers are correct, Republicans went from controlling 36 state legislative chambers prior to the election to 57 after the votes were counted. There are 99 state legislative chambers, with 49 states having two chambers, a house and a senate, and Nebraska having only one chamber. Nebraska, a pretty solidly Republican state, has a non-partisan legislature; that is, candidates do not technically run under a party designation, but I'd have to believe a majority of delegates there are Republicans or Republican leaning. 

** That's not to say all of this happened in a vacuum, as I'm sure states under Democratic control saw Democrats do similar.  

*** "Gerrymandering" comes from the early 1800s, when then Governor Gerry of Massachusetts supported and signed redrawn districts to gain advantage for his own Democratic-Republican Party. One district supposedly had the shape of a salamander, thus the Governor's name was coupled with the second part of salamander to give us, "Gerrymander."

**** Just for example, Richard Shelby, a senator from Alabama, was once a Democrat, as was Governor Rick Perry of Texas. On the other hand, former Florida governor, Charlie Crist was elected as a Republican, then declared himself an independent, then registered as a Democrat. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was a liberal/progressive Republican, but then became an independent.

WORD HISTORY:
Peace-This word, closely related to "pact," goes back to Indo European "pak," which had the notion of "fasten, fix in place." This gave its Latin offspring "pax," which meant "peace," with the idea being "a fixed condition of harmony;" that is, an agreement (a pact). Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "pais," which then was carried to England by the Normans as "pes." It was borrowed by English as "pece" during the 1100s. It then displaced English words used to express "peace," one of which was "freod," whose relatives in the other Germanic languages live on as: German "Friede(n)," Low German Saxon "Freden," West Frisian "frede," Dutch "vrede," Danish, Swedish and Norwegian "fred," Icelandic "friður" (the 'ð'= 'th'). 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Three

 Political parties developed to help elect people with the same or similar ideas. That may seem to be simple enough, but in reality, things are far more complicated. If you have one issue, like slavery, things are easily decided; you are either for it or against it. The Republican Party became a national party in the 1850s because of its opposition to slavery; thus, many anti-slavery Americans joined, or voted for, the Republican candidates. While there certainly were other issues around, slavery had become the most hotly contested and divisive in the nation. The issue was so potent, when Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States, southern pro-slavery states decided to secede from the United States, an action that triggered the Civil War.

In my life time, there have been many hot-button issues, including, but certainly not limited to, the still lingering affects of slavery; that is, race and civil rights for Black Americans, but also abortion, women's rights, gay rights, immigration, and wars, especially the divisive late 1960s and early 1970s over the Vietnam War and the divisiveness over the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath beginning in 2003. From the time before the Civil War, the South had been a major element of the Democratic Party. After the war, white southerners were not about to support the Republican Party, the party of the anti-slavery movement and the subsequent defeat of the Confederacy. Southerners remained staunch Democrats. In contrast, Black Americans voted Republican, pretty much to the last man, and back then it was "man," because women could not vote.

As America grew and businessmen prospered (again, business was largely the province of men), the issues of economic fairness and business practices came much into question. A populist progressive movement grew among Americans, including many small farmers. When Republican Teddy Roosevelt came to office,* these issues were just waiting for some dynamic leader to promote them. Roosevelt got legislation passed on a variety of matters, including food safety, conservation, and the dismantling of huge corporations. For the last, he earned the title "the Trust Buster." The Republican coalition of those times consisted of most unions (although they were 'relatively' weak in those times), farmers, Black Americans, and many immigrants, while retaining the support of many conservative business people.** All of this began to change when Roosevelt left office and business people made a go of moving the Republican Party toward their side. Business, especially big business, played an increasingly important role in Republican politics. Teddy Roosevelt's run for president in 1912 as a third party candidate (the progressive "Bull Moose Party"***) and with the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, the conservative, business wing of the Republican Party asserted itself. Under conservative Republican rule in the 1920s (elections of 1920 and 1924), the country "seemed" to be "roaring" ahead, but underneath, many Americans struggled just to stay in place. In 1928, the election again went Republican, but Democrats actually carried some urban areas, a preview of what was to become commonplace.**** Just seven months after taking office, Republican President Herbert Hoover faced the biggest economic challenge of the nation's history, as the entire system seemed to be coming unglued.

The Great Depression changed the political landscape as nothing had since the Civil War and by 1932, voters had retired Hoover from office by a substantial margin. By 1936 labor unions and Black Americans had largely gone over to the Democratic Party, where most have remained since, albeit somewhat shakily at times. The South remained staunchly conservative, but Democratic,***** and Catholic and Jewish ethnic neighborhoods in cities became Democratic strongholds.****** Franklin D. Roosevelt led a formidable Democratic Party coalition from the mid 1930s until his death in April 1945. It was an interesting coalition, too, as it held some strange bedfellows; for instance, white southerners and blacks, fundamentalist Protestants (mainly in the South) and urban Roman Catholic and Jewish voters (mainly in the North). When hatred and silly divisiveness don't prevail, people can get along for a common interest. (Although not all was exactly heaven, see note *****)

More in "Part Four"

* Theodore Roosevelt, as Vice President, succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley, and then later was elected in his own right in 1904.

** Democrats were still often tagged by some Americans as "Confederates," a legacy of the Civil War, but it was an association not sought by conservative business people. Further, the American westward expansion and the profits derived from it had largely been overseen (and helped) by Republican administrations. Further, Republicans favored high protective tariffs and the "gold standard," both generally supported by businessmen, and William Jennings Bryan, a  Democratic orator and often candidate, scared the hell out of many businessmen (which is another story). Businessmen may not have always agreed with Roosevelt, but they still saw him as less of a threat to their own self interest. Plus, many business people tend to think and look long term. They knew the "Trust Buster" wasn't going to be around forever. 

*** Although highly admired, even Teddy Roosevelt could not win as a third party candidate, which shows how difficult it is to compete in national American politics. Notice, I said "difficult," not "impossible." Roosevelt carried only six states and garnered only slightly more than 27% of the popular vote. But if you think that's bad, incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft carried only two states and received little more than 23% of the popular vote!

**** The Democratic candidate was Al Smith, a Roman Catholic, who also favored the repeal of Prohibition; that is, the law put in place by the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages in America. No doubt some Republican attacks on Smith's religion led many urban voters, where many Catholics lived, to vote Democratic, a voting pattern they maintained for quite some time. Anti-Catholic Republican operatives (and some Ku Klux Klan members) kept rumors circulating that Smith would be beholden only to the Pope, who was waiting for Smith's election to open a sort of "new Vatican" in Washington. Now, on the other side, undoubtedly some Protestant voters chose Hoover, the Republican candidate and Protestant (Quaker), simply because of religion. What the balance was is not easily deciphered, as Smith was undoubtedly destined to lose in the midst of what "seemed" like "Republican prosperity."  

***** With southern white voters reliably in the Democratic column, the addition of black voters only strengthened the Democratic hold on the South, as in those times, blacks were heavily concentrated in the southern states, although eventually, the very right for blacks to vote was often prohibited by gimmicks, if not outright intimidation (and that was by Democrats!). While conservative in many things, economic populism had not left the South untouched. Huey Long, a populist Democratic governor and then U.S. senator from Louisiana, had a considerable following in the South. Long's "Share Our Wealth" ideas of limiting large fortunes, guaranteeing veterans pensions, income supports for the elderly, and free education to all (to try to even out opportunities), was highly popular in parts of the South and elsewhere, and he was considered a possible (and formidable) challenger for the 1936 election as a progressive third party candidate. Long was assassinated in Baton Rouge in 1935 by the son-in-law of a political opponent.

****** Immigration patterns from certain parts of Europe had brought many Catholics and Jews to the United  States prior to the Great Depression. For instance, the Russian Revolution had brought many Jews, Ukrainians, and Poles to the U.S. The Russian Empire under the Tsar had contained a substantial part of Polish territory, which then became part of a reborn Poland. The western Ukraine, something of a battleground during World War One, remained such after the war, as Poland battled the new Soviet Union there (from 1919 until 1921). War and revolution left many people in the overall region in despair. Ukrainians in that general western region tended to be Ukrainian Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox. Poles were overwhelmingly Roman Catholic.

WORD HISTORY:
Pure-This word goes back to Indo European "pu," which had the notion of "to clean completely, to cleanse." This gave its Latin offspring "purus," with the same general meaning, but also, by extension, "unmixed," and later also, "untouched, chaste." French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "pur," and English borrowed the word as "pur," seemingly about 1300, give or take a few years. The ending "e" was added for developing English spelling rules, which meant the "u" was long.

Unions & Allies Need A Plan

A number of months ago, a union member friend of mine and I were talking about the decision to try to recall the Governor of Wisconsin, Republican Scott Walker. We both agreed that while we certainly didn't like Walker, the recall idea was not a good one. It was overreach and it was made in haste and in anger. I certainly understand the anger, but these kinds of decisions need to be thought through. The whole thing was terribly misguided, as it used valuable resources of money and effort that will be sorely needed in this year's election in the fall. Walker's success has now put unions on the spot, although I'm not so sure as much as some people believe. At least let's hope not, but that remains to be seen.

Why did the effort fail? It wasn't because Walker's opponents didn't try. Many gave their all, but the recall gave conservative donors and groups a single target on which to concentrate their efforts. In most cases, and maybe all cases, unions and Democrats cannot financially compete with the kinds of financial resources available to the political right.* While Walker's opponents blame these huge sums of money poured into Wisconsin to save the Governor as being the reason, that's not the only reason Walker held on. You must remember, many, and probably most, Americans have only a casual interest in politics. You can say Americans need to pay more attention, stomp your feet, throw a tantrum, or whatever, but that's not going to change that fact at the moment. There are times Americans pay somewhat more attention to political issues, and perhaps this time Wisconsinites did so, but overall, recalls have a difficult time, as people do not want perpetual elections. If Walker had been defeated, the situation in Wisconsin would not have improved, as Republicans would have then targeted Tom Barrett, who was Walker's Democratic opponent on the ballot. The political battle would have then raged against him. People want some sort of peace and quiet for a while. My God, here in Ohio, a key battleground state, you can't put on the television for fifteen minutes without seeing several ads for both sides, and it's only June! It gets on your damned nerves, and I'm interested in politics. How do you think Ohioans far less interested in politics feel? And I can only imagine how relieved Wisconsinites must feel now that the recall is over.

The thing is, now unions and their allies need a plan to thwart the plan of destruction that has already been plotted by the corporate bigwigs and their allies, unfortunately some of whom are terribly misguided, as they are people of average means. Make no mistake about it, the corporate leaders and wealthy interests are moving in for the kill. The 2008 elections, the costly struggle over health care, the 2010 elections, the Wisconsin debacle, the fight in Ohio over collective bargaining rights, the coming elections, and other issues I've undoubtedly forgotten have all put a strain on the finances and organizations of America's labor movement, and of progressives in general. This is just what our opponents want, a battle on many fronts where progressive resources are dissipated. The sums of money being raised by the other side only goes to show that they DO NOT need more tax cuts. More tax cuts for the super wealthy lead to more donations to conservative candidates and groups, helping to elect more "tax cutters" and supporters of the right wing agenda, which, if left unchecked, will continue toward an out and out fascist-like system.

Progressive leaders of varying viewpoints, from unions to Democratic Party leaders to leaders of the "Occupy" movements nationwide, need to sit down together and work out a plan to combat those who will totally dominate the country if the labor movement goes down. Then no one will be secure in their income or benefits, including non-union workers, some of whom erroneously seem to think they'll somehow be exempt from cuts. Workers at all levels must be shown what can happen to THEM if the already rich and powerful become even more rich and powerful. Efforts must be thought through, with financial and organizational resources strategically committed to where they can do the most good. Running third party candidates will only serve to help the opposition. THINK! Let's NOT learn the lesson of disunity the hard way! Would you prefer a whole bunch of Scott Walkers in office across the country, including in the presidency? Progressives can't be "purists," but certainly a fairer society must be at the core of principles. Not everyone will always agree on every single issue, but if "fairness" remains at the center of issues, the disagreements hopefully can be limited to details, rather than to overall substance.

* Remember folks, the wealthiest 400 families in America have as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000 (that's 150 million!). If you think wealth isn't concentrated in America, think again!

WORD HISTORY:
Plan-This word, a close relative of "plain" and "plane," goes back to Indo European "pleh," which had the notion of "flat, spread out." This gave its Latin offspring "planus," which meant "flat surface." French, a Latin-based language, had "plant," which initially meant "layout of a building." The whole concept of "plan" goes back to "laying out a drawing/design on a 'flat' surface." English borrowed the word from French around 1700, and gradually "plan" broadened in meaning to just about any "design," whether by drawing or in the mind. The verb came from the noun in the 1700s. It was also borrowed by German as "Plan" (German nouns are capitalized).

Fear Drives The Political Ads, But...

Politics is always about "fear" to some degree, often to a large degree. All political parties use it, especially America's two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Fear can make people behave irrationally, and at times, both parties would prefer that you would just listen to their ads, panic, and not "think." The question is, is one party really playing more on irrational fear than the other? My answer is "yes." Americans of the right or the left have always had skepticism of government; after all, the nation was founded in revolution against rule by England, but interestingly, the collective scandals of Republican Richard Nixon's administration* made the country even more skeptical, with many folks seemingly seeing conspiracies in just about every event thereafter. Some skepticism is one thing, overload on conspiracies isn't good for your mental health, folks. Take a deep breath or two and THINK.

Since Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, there has been a growing ultra-conservative, anti-government movement that has gradually taken over the Republican Party. Even some Republicans have noted that Reagan would not be able to win his party's nomination in this day and age, as he was "too moderate." Twenty years ago President George Bush, Sr. was essentially held hostage by the extreme right wing of the GOP, a right wing that never really got behind him in his reelection bid. When Democrat Bill Clinton won the election, this ultra right movement attacked him in unrelenting manner, with some even accusing the President of murder.** By the mid to late 1990s, right wing militia groups had grown and a few extremists blew up a federal office building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. The poison has only grown since then, as George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq mobilized major opposition to his administration, as the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," the reason given by Bush for going to war, were not found.*** These examples and many more have left a dizzying number of conspiracy-like claims by people in both parties against one another.

When Barack Obama was elected as President of the United States, right wing and white militia membership rose as fear of the first African-American president gripped these people.**** Since that time, conservative groups, led by the rise of the "Tea Party," have stoked the fires of paranoia against Obama and Democrats, often charging or implying that the President would take away guns from all Americans, no matter how law abiding, or that he was not American born, or that he was a secret Muslim seeking to destroy the country from within, or that he was out to destroy religion, or that he was seeking to bankrupt the country (conveniently forgetting the debts piled up by his Republican predecessor, indeed, predecessors). As some of the saner elements of the "media world" have noted, there hasn't been any attempt to ban guns, and Ted Nugent's recent display was way out there, folks, although Ted's words seemed to almost indicate that Obama was on his way at that very moment to disarm all in the crowd. These folks and others need to get a grip on themselves. Sadly, few if any Republican leaders have stepped forward to squelch the nonsense or the hate mongering. Conservative talk radio or television hosts have become rather notorious for spewing venom and egging on an element of the population whose very sanity is in question.

On the other side, Democrats claim Republican budget cuts and program changes will result in the destruction of government programs necessary for elderly and poor Americans. Republicans say it is untrue, but when you talk about privatizing all or parts of these programs, that means lots of greedy people will try to get their hands on the tons of money used for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Will "free markets" care if you or your parents or your grandparents have dependable income or medical care? Do you trust for profit business people to make sure you don't live in abject poverty or in sickness or misery from serious illness?*****  The desire by many in the GOP for the elimination of Legal Aid will deprive poor folks of legal advice and representation in this complex legalistic society we have. What if YOU fall on hard times? We like to criticize "government bureaucrats," but would you prefer to seek assistance from a government employee who collects a salary in the work force, or from a business person interested in profit only?  

More in "Part Two-Angst"

* President Nixon was often under political fire for his policies, primarily regarding the Vietnam War, a war that had become increasingly unpopular and increasingly divisive. To keep this simple, some of Nixon's top administration officials were involved in orchestrating a break-in of the Democratic headquarters in one of the buildings in the Watergate complex in Washington. The burglars planted bugging devices and checked or photographed some documents. These officials then tried to cover up their misdeeds, as several of the actual burglars were arrested. The whole scandal would require a separate article, or series of articles, but in the end, Nixon resigned, having been accused in the cover up and obstruction of justice. A number of Americans felt the President was directly involved in authorizing the break-in.

** Vince Foster was a White House official during the first few months of Bill Clinton's administration. He was found dead in a park in suburban Washington D.C. in what various law enforcement agencies concluded was a suicide. Later, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr (a Republican) concluded the same. Right wing groups charged that Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or both, were really behind Foster's death, an allegation that lingers to this day. 

*** I guess I should say that the very close and contentious election of 2000 just laid a powder keg out waiting for a lit match to touch the fuse. For those too young or unaware, the 2000 election brought a razor-thin victory to George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore. In hotly contested Florida, Bush was awarded the state, and therefore the presidency, by only some 500 votes out of several million votes cast in that state.

**** Let me make one thing perfectly clear (ah, that might not be a great choice of words, but what the hell, I'll stick with it; after all, I mentioned Nixon), I'm NOT saying any or all criticism of Obama is racist or bigoted, and I have criticism of some things he's done myself. We need an open discussion of issues and criticism of political leaders' ideas is part of that discussion. However, there's no question in my mind that racism and bigotry lie behind a certain element in the country (interestingly, "a minority") who are willing to bring the whole country down to discredit Obama. They are NOT afraid he will fail, they are afraid he will succeed, thus making a case for another possible future African-American president.

***** I've noted in articles before that my father was a staunch Republican, but once retired, he began to see how important Social Security and Medicare were. After the GOP took control of Congress in the mid 1990s and Republicans began to talk about "privatizing" Social Security, he started to criticize their ideas, worrying that wealthy business people couldn't "wait to get their hands on that (Social Security) money," as he told me.  

WORD HISTORY:
Thing-The ultimate origin of this common word is unclear, but Old Germanic had "thengan" or "thingan," which meant "council or assembly of officials," but it also began to develop the secondary meaning "matters discussed by the assembly." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "thing," which kept the "assembly (meeting)" idea, as well as the "matters discussed" meaning. Gradually the secondary meaning became the primary meaning in the Germanic languages, as other words replaced the meaning "assembly," although traces of the original meaning survive, as Iceland's parliament is the "Althing." Over time, the idea of "matters discussed," broadened to "matters in general," and then even to "objects." Common in the other Germanic languages, all with the same basic meaning as their close English relative: German and Low German Saxon have "Ding," some Low German dialect has "dinkj, "West Frisian and Dutch have "ding," Norwegian, Danish and Swedish all have "ting," and Icelandic has "thing."

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

This was first published in May 2012.


"The Battle Over Budgets" Part One/Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Depression, Part Eleven/B

Hoover had great difficulty holding his own party together. He never seemed to be a big admirer of Andrew Mellon, and he had frequent disagreements with him, but he nonetheless appointed Mellon as Treasury Secretary, and kept him in that position far too long to placate the pro-business, conservative wing of the Republican Party. Republicans had a large pro-business, “conservative wing,” that had been in the ascendancy during the Harding and Coolidge era, but also a large “progressive wing” that had suffered from diminished influence since Teddy Roosevelt left the White House. In those times, the entire country did NOT have electricity. Many progressives were pushing for government funded, generated and regulated electrical power for the many, particularly rural, areas where electric power was not yet available. They thought Hoover, the former Teddy Roosevelt supporter, was one of them; that is, a progressive on this issue, but it turned out that he opposed Federal development of electrical power, favoring private business in the matter, and the progressive wing of the Republican Party was very embittered over this. Of course, the pro business, anti-government wing wasn’t terribly enchanted with Hoover either, as he criticized Wall Street and eventually took the government into the private economy by offering government loans to help hard pressed financial businesses, plus, his administration ran huge deficits, for those times.* For staunch Republican partisans, Hoover was almost anathema, as he preferred cooperation with Democrats, and almost appeared to be non-partisan, rather than just bi-partisan. It really wasn’t until AFTER he left office that the Republican label was anchored to him, as many Democrats, not nearly as endeared to bi-partisan cooperation as Hoover, fixed Hoover, Republicans and Depression firmly together in the minds of the American public, although not without reason. Hoover, always seeming to go against public sentiment, helped their efforts by critiquing the New Deal and serving as the “anti-Roosevelt” (Franklin, that is) for a time.

Much later in his life, Hoover’s reputation began to recover, interestingly with some help from Democratic president, Harry Truman. The two became good friends over time, and Truman asked Hoover to serve as head of a commission to overhaul the Federal government. Later still, Dwight Eisenhower gave Hoover an assignment for the government. Some Democratic politicians gradually developed a “guilt complex” for their political jibes at the former president, and one story I recall, had President Lyndon Johnson making a change in plans to visit the ailing Hoover not long before the ex-president passed away, in spite of Secret Service objections to LBJ’s diversion from his schedule. For much of his life, Hoover acted as the spokesperson for “The Boys Clubs of America,” which in more recent times includes girls. By all accounts, the kids loved the old man, and it hearkens back to that ball field scene I mentioned earlier in this series when he was president. Hoover died at the ripe old age of 90, in the fall of 1964.

Now, a new president occupied the White House, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his advisers benefited not only from seeing Hoover's failures over three and one half years, but also from some of Hoover's basic programs, which they would take over and expand to combat the Depression, and then call them their own.

* Far worse deficits would come under Franklin Roosevelt during the 1930s and even worse during World War Two. It is interesting that Roosevelt criticized Hoover for deficits, but then proceeded to run even larger amounts of red ink. Decades later, Ronald Reagan criticized Jimmy Carter for deficits, only to run deficits that made Carter's debts look like a surplus. While this is a bit of "hairsplitting," Roosevelt was a politician who saw things "at the moment," rather than always as ideological. While this doesn't excuse Roosevelt's inconsistencies, Reagan "claimed" to be a conservative who supposedly truly believed what he said.

WORD HISTORY:
Bow-This is the word which rhymes with "how," and which means "front section of a ship." In a sense, it is really the same word as English "bough," originally "shoulder, arm," but now meaning "branch or limb of a tree" (see "The Great Depression, Part 11/A for the history of "bough"). It goes back to Indo European "bhaghus," which meant "arm, elbow," which was derived from Indo European "bheugh," which meant, "to bend." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "boguz," which moved the meaning upwards on the arm to "shoulder, upper arm." This gave the Germanic dialects and languages a number of related words, all with the meaning "shoulder" (usually in reference to an animal, not a human), but later with the sense referring to "the front of a ship" (and in more modern times often to "the front of an airplane"). English borrowed the word meaning "front of a ship" in the 1300s, likely from Low German "boog" or Dutch "boeg" (or both) as there was much trade between these related people, with closely related languages (English, German, including Low German, and Dutch are all West Germanic languages).

Teddy Roosevelt Would Be A Democrat

This was originally publish in September 2009 

In case you haven't seen it, Katie Couric, of CBS News, interviewed Glenn Beck, of talk radio, formerly of CNN Headline News, and now also with Fox News. Amazingly, this extremist, right wing provocateur, who will make a bundle off of his new book, I'm sure (folks, what does this tell us about the sanity of this country?), compared John McCain to "weird progressive" Teddy Roosevelt, the former REPUBLICAN President of the United States. If being a conservationist, who set aside many an acre of American lands for national parks; a peacemaker (he won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping negotiate the end of a war between Russia and Japan); a strong supporter of clean, safe food and medications (The Food and Drugs Act); the "trust buster" of monopolies, like John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil; and many, many more accomplishments to make the United States a better place, then I want to count myself among the "weird progressives!"

Senator McCain, whose voice has been noticeably silent during all of the recent right wing hype, now has felt the sting of people he should have spoken out against long ago. Shame on you John McCain, but now I welcome you to the side of some kind of decent debate about the critical issues facing the nation and the world.

With people like Beck seemingly having taken over the Republican Party, Teddy Roosevelt, if he were still with us, would do the right thing, and become a Democrat! He would let these self righteous spewers of venom wallow in their own hatred and bigotry.

WORD HISTORY:
Boost-For a fairly common word such as this, not much is known about it. It was first recorded in North America in the early part of the 1800s, and had the meaning of "push from below." "Booster," which was derived from "boost," came into usage in the late 1800s. The ultimate origins of "boost" remain unknown.