"East Of Eden:" The Miniseries, Part One

The 1970s and 1980s were a time when television networks aired several shows in miniseries format. A miniseries was a production that was longer than a made for TV movie, but shorter than an actual television series (a typical television series had like 25 to 30 episodes in a season). A miniseries aired in its initial showing for several evenings in prime time, and East of Eden was first broadcast on ABC for three evenings in early 1981.

"East of Eden" was a novel by American author John Steinbeck first published in the early 1950s. It happens to be my favorite book, and the 1981 miniseries was what got me interested in the book. The miniseries brought a renewed interest in Steinbeck's writing, and I bought a paperback edition of "East of Eden," complete with a cover picture taken from the miniseries. Steinbeck wrapped several stories together in his book, with the main story being based upon the story of Cain and Abel from Genesis. The biblical story is still relevant today, as Steinbeck shows how the basic story is repeated even within the same family, the Trasks. Steinbeck took his fictional story and entwined it with some history of his real life family, primarily his maternal family, although he makes mention of his paternal side, and even of himself, when he was a kid. The mid 1950s saw the release of a movie based upon the novel, a movie which made James Dean a star. This movie, however, only covers about the last third of Steinbeck's book, while the miniseries dealt with the entire book. While the movie is good, I found the miniseries far more compelling, even though the movie version also had one of my favorite actors, Canadian-born Raymond Massey.

Cast: American actor Timothy Bottoms as Adam Trask, American actor Lloyd Bridges as Samuel Hamilton, English actress Jane Seymour as Cathy/Kate, American actor Bruce Boxleitner as Charles Trask, American actor Warren Oates as Cyrus Trask, Korean-born American actor Soon-Tek Oh as Lee, American actor Sam Bottoms as Cal Trask, Canadian actor Hart Bochner as Aron Trask, American actor Howard Duff as Jules Edwards, American actress Anne Baxter as Faye, American actor Richard Masur as Will Hamilton, American actress Karen Allen as Abra, American actor Nicholas Pryor as Cathy's Latin teacher, Mr. Grew. Timothy Bottoms and Sam Bottoms are brothers, and Sam Bottoms died far too young in 2008. Jane Seymour won a Golden Globe Award for her performance in "East of Eden."

The miniseries opens in Connecticut in the spring of 1863, with Cyrus Trask, a liquor-drinking, story fabricating man, with a wooden peg for one leg, taking his extremely pious wife into town for her to see the doctor. They have their infant son, Adam, with them. A few of the town's people gather around as Cyrus spins his stories about the ongoing Civil War, only to have his wife correctly tell those gathered, that Cyrus was only in one battle, in spite of his boasting, and that even then, it was only minutes into that battle that he lost the bottom half of one leg to a Confederate bullet. When his wife goes inside to the doctor, Cyrus tells the little gathering how it was when the doctor had to hack off the bottom portion of his bullet-shattered leg. Inside, the doctor tells Mrs. Trask that she has gonorrhea (brought home by Cyrus from his time in the army), and she reacts in a terrified manner, calling it "a disease of sin," and telling the doctor that she contracted the disease from some erotic dreams she'd had while her husband was away in the army. The doctor tells her otherwise, but Mrs. Trask, filled with religious superstition and misunderstanding, and in need of purity, is deeply troubled, and later that night she goes out to a pond on their farm and drowns herself. Well... so much for the gonorrhea.

Cyrus is left to care for their baby son, which he is woefully unprepared to do. When Adam cries because he's hungry, Cyrus douses a rag with whiskey and sticks it into the boy's mouth. Cyrus knows he needs another wife and he marries a woman named Alice. Alice quickly bears a son, but she also gives Adam plenty of care, although she is sickly. Cyrus continues to spin stories about untrue exploits, but he sets them down in writing for publication, and as a consequence, he meets many army people and veterans over time. Of his two sons, Cyrus favors Adam, and he wants Adam to be the soldier Cyrus imagines he would have been, had he not been wounded; the soldier of the stories Cyrus tells. Adam doesn't want to be a soldier, and although he is a crack shot with a rifle, he deliberately misses a deer his father ordered him to kill. Adam is kind and sensitive, while the other son, Charles, is tough and ruthless. Yet for all of his outward toughness, Charles is insecure inside, and in fact, this insecurity causes the ruthlessness to flare, and he often bullies or terrorizes Adam. Charles adores his father, but he sees and senses that Adam is the favorite of Cyrus. This all comes to the fore on one of Cyrus's birthdays, when the boys are well into their teens. Charles gets money together to buy his father a special knife with three blades and made in Germany. Adam, on the other hand, doesn't really have affection for his father, but he is respectful of him, because that's the way he is. He makes no special arrangements for a gift for Cyrus, but he finds a pup wandering around and decides this is what he will give to his father. In a decisive moment, Charles hands his father the wrapped knife. When his father opens it, Charles tells him the details of the knife and how it was shipped clear from Germany. Cyrus looks over the knife and closes the blades, then he slips the knife into the drawer of his desk. He thanks Charles, but he then turns his attention to the squirming little mass wrapped in a blanket in Adam's arms. Adam hands his father the dog, and Cyrus is visibly happy. Charles is despondent, but this later turns to anger and to outright fury. He later gets Adam outside and ruthlessly beats and kicks him, leaving him curled on the ground while he goes to find an ax. When he returns, Adam has gotten away and made it back into the house where his father is furious over the beating and where Alice cares for Adan's beaten body. Cyrus wonders why Charles had so viciously beaten Adam, and he doesn't understand how desperate Charles is for his love and attention. Adam heals and finally a group of cavalry come to take Adam into the army, at the request of Cyrus, a man who has been becoming better known to many in Republican-dominated post-Civil War Washington DC. The military emphasis has now shifted to western areas, as the US Army seeks to protect settlers from the Indian tribes fighting to save their homelands. Adam tells his father that Charles would be far better at being a soldier, but Cyrus tells him that the army will help him to learn things about courage and to help him develop into a man, but that the army might let things loose in Charles' personality that should be kept chained in.

Meanwhile, another part of the story takes shape in Massachusetts. A mother hears some giggles of children coming from the barn. When she opens the doors, two boys have her daughter's dress pushed up. At first the mother sees and believes what her own eyes have shown her, but then her desire to believe that her daughter could not be in any way to blame takes hold and she decides to make the boys pay dearly for the matter. The boys' fathers decide to use a strap on their sons, but the indignant mother carries it one step further... it must be a bare-bottomed beating. She has her daughter watch as the boys cry in pain and humiliation, but she shows a little satisfactory smile as the punishment is given. This is Cathy... Catherine.

As Cathy goes into her later teenage years, she begins playing on the attentions of one of her teachers, her Latin teacher, Mr. Grew. The man becomes obsessed with her, but his religious beliefs and his desire to become a reverend conflict with all of his thoughts of Cathy, and he becomes terribly distraught to the point of taking his own life. He goes to Cathy's home late one night and feverishly pounds on the door so he can speak to Cathy's father, but the father turns him away, although he wonders why the man would come to the house in such a frenzied state and at such a late hour. The man goes off and shoots himself. When Cathy and her father quarrel about her schooling, her father mentions about the man coming to the house and about things he's heard about her from around town. Cathy knows her act has hit an end, and one night she sets fire to the house, killing her parents. She leaves behind a bloody dress and a pendant, with the knowledge that the town's people will leap to the conclusion that some hobos from a nearby encampment have kidnapped Cathy and killed her parents and set fire to the house. That's just what happens and the people take out after the hobo encampment.

Now we go back to the Trask family.... Adam serves in the US Cavalry and at one point, Cyrus uses his influence to get Adam brought to Washington DC so Cyrus can tell him that he has gotten things arranged for Adam to go to West Point. Adam declines the offer, having already angered his father by telling him that he had a relationship with an Indian woman, and that he never killed one Indian during his time in the fighting. Cyrus, who has been rising among Union veterans of the Civil War, is happy to learn from Adam that the woman died from small pox, and he tells Adam, "I don't need an Indian grandchild running around." Adam leaves his angry father and heads back to his cavalry unit. After several years, Adam comes home. Charles is still working on the farm and Cyrus has recently died. For a moment, Charles angrily asks Adam why he didn't home sooner, and he shoots a stern glance at Adam, as he had so many times in their past to intimidate Adam, but Cyrus had been right, and Adam has learned about courage and he no longer fears his brother. Charles realizes this is not the same Adam, and the tension eases. In a touching scene, instead of trying to beat Adam, Charles puts his arms around him and hugs him. The stunned, but happy Adam pats Charles as he hugs him. Charles has the will left by Cyrus, and he and Adam are stunned to learn that Cyrus has left the two boys a great deal of money, as well as the farm property. Charles is badly shaken by the thought that Cyrus stole the money in some way from the veteran's group with which he'd been involved, since the salary Cyrus earned would never have been enough to leave more than 100 thousand dollars to his sons (equivalent to about 2.5 million dollars today). Adam, although he has already thought of this, tries to calm Charles' fears about their father. * Further, Charles tells Adam that the army sent their father's military records to him. Charles then sees that Cyrus had been lying all along, because he never had been at any of the famous Civil War battles in which he had claimed to have taken part. Adam had never believed the stories, and he is unfazed by the news, but Charles is devastated. This all ties in with Steinbeck showing us how we sometimes believe things, not because they're true, but because that's what we want to believe.  

As this is all taking place, we meet Jules Edwards, a middle-aged respected man who uses a churchgoing facade to cover his real life....a whore master. Edwards brutalizes some of his "workers" who are convinced by an evangelist's hellfire and brimstone to turn away from their way of life. He punches the women and uses a small lash he carries hidden in a briefcase to whip them. One day Edwards is approached by Cathy, now using her proper name, Catherine, who tells him she wants to work for him. Edwards, a married man with children, is taken by the woman's beauty, and it becomes something of "love at first sight" for him; so, he makes a deal with Cathy, making her his mistress, but keeping her out of working his prostitution circuit. Edwards gets her a house, buys her clothing and gives her a monetary allowance. While Cathy loves the lavish life style, she also doesn't like the control Edwards has over her. She has the lock on her house changed, which badly annoys Edwards, but he can't bring himself to turn Cathy loose, the emotional tie is too strong from his side. He spends "time" with Cathy and, afterward, we see her scrubbing her hands with a brush. Edwards has champagne waiting, but Cathy doesn't want it, saying that it's not good for her. Finally Edwards coaxes Cathy into drinking some champagne, and she then wants more. Earlier he had mentioned that he wants some truth from her, and she tells him, "I don't think so." Now the effect of the wine has caused the veil of dishonesty to fall from her. She calls Edwards a "slug," and tells him that being around him makes her want to vomit. Now Jules Edwards sees the real Cathy and his inward ruthlessness is already planning on how to deal with it. Edwards gets Cathy to pack some belongings, telling her that she had come to him wanting "to work," so now he'll let her "work." She says she'll tell the police. Edwards then tells her he'll take her back to her hometown, where he heard about a fire... He takes her out into the countryside and pulls out the hidden lash. She tells him he will never hit her, but she's terribly misjudged Edwards' anger and ruthlessness, and he hits her and punches her. She draws a knife she has hidden and she cuts him, which only infuriates him even more. He beats her badly and the scene ends.

The two Trask brothers work the farm, and one morning they hear a noise outside. When they go to the door, a woman covered in blood and dirt is trying to crawl up the steps. They take the woman inside and Adam's natural kindness has him look after the woman. Charles wants the woman out, and it doesn't take long for him to see her manipulative ways and he tries to warn his brother, but Adam insists she needs help to recover (he also has fallen for her and he doesn't want to see or hear anything bad about her). Gradually the woman gets better, and she knows how to use Adam's emotions, but she cannot get to Charles by playing on any kindness, and so she tries to lure him to her own room, but when that doesn't really work, she goes to his room, having drugged Adam with her pain medication, while she makes her play for Charles. When all is...ah... done, Cathy tells Charles that she and Adam had gotten married that afternoon. The usually steady Charles is now appalled that he had just had sex with his brother's new wife. It seems even Charles isn't that bad, but Cathy laughs about it all.

Adam has long had a desire to go to California, and he and Cathy set out for that state. When they get to California, Cathy is not feeling well. The doctor knows that Cathy is pregnant and she has tried to abort the pregnancy with a knitting needle. The doctor tells her she must have the baby and that if he suspects any foul play on Cathy's part, he will report her and testify against her. The doctor only tells Adam that Cathy is pregnant, he does not tell him about the attempted abortion.

Adam looks at land to buy to start he and Cathy's new life. He finds a place he likes and he is told by others to see Sam Hamilton about digging wells and building windmills for the place. Samuel is an Irish immigrant who likes his whiskey, but he is greatly restricted in that drinking pleasure because of his devoutly religious wife, Liza, who is also from Ireland (we never see Liza). Samuel and Liza Hamilton were John Steinbeck's maternal grandparents. Samuel is a man always seeking to learn and he and Adam strike up a friendship, initially aided by Adam's gift of a bottle of Irish whiskey to Samuel. When we meet Samuel, we also meet two of his nine children who will play important roles later on. These are two of Samuel's sons, Will, who has a mind for business, and Tom, who is more to the curious side, like his father.

More later in Part Two...

* To me, this part of the story was always Steinbeck's way of showing that everyone is tainted by some kind of sin, no matter how pious or good a person they really are. Adam, a good man, lives a good life off of the ill gotten money of his father.   

For Part Two, here is the link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2018/10/east-of-eden-miniseries-part-two_25.html            

For Part Three, here is the link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2018/10/east-of-eden-miniseries-part-3final.html

Photo is from Part 1 of 2009 DVD by Acorn Media

WORD HISTORY:
Saga (Saw, not the implement)-This word, closely related to "say," ^ and meaning "a generally long story," goes back to Indo European "sekw," which meant, "to say, to utter sounds and words." This gave Old Germanic the noun, "sagon," which meant, "story." This gave Old English "sagu," which meant, "a story, a saying, a statement." This later became the now archaic, "saw," meaning, "a saying," but then later also, "an overused saying," especially when coupled with "old," as, "old saw," an expression that is still used at times. This word "saw" is not related to "saw," the jagged tool used for cutting. Old Germanic "sagon" also gave Old Norse "story, long tale." With the original English word having changed in meaning, away from the "story" meaning, to that of "saw," above, the Norse word had seemingly remained among historians as it related to Norse history. By the early 1700s, Norse writings had seen a revival among a number of historians and literary people, and so did the Norse word "saga," which was taken on by English to mean, "an Icelandic or Norwegian narrative," then more generally expanded to "a long type of story," and in the mid 1800s, it had added the more disparaging secondary meaning, "a long, boring story involving too much detail." German still has "Sage" (originally also spelled "saga"), meaning, more or less, "a story based upon historical accounts, but not necessarily proven;" thus also, "a legend," but German also borrowed "Saga," seemingly from English in the 1800s, with the same general meaning, "a narrative, a story." Low German has "Saag" (story of historical basis), Dutch has "sage" (story, chronicle), Norwegian "soge" (story, history), Icelandic has "saga" (history, story), Swedish "saga" (long story, legend), Danish once had "sage," but "apparently" Danish now uses "saga," perhaps from German or English? Also "sagn" (legend) and West Frisian has "sêge," (story, long story). So to condense this: the English noun "saw" (meaning, "a saying," and originally also meaning, "story"), is an original English word, while its close relative, "saga," was borrowed into English.  

^ The modern form "say" once also had a "g," as its German cousin still does (the infinitive form in German is "sagen," but the imperative is "sag," and "Sag mal," is, "Tell me;" with the "me" being understood, and "mal" softening the command to a request, as in, "Tell me, how have you been?" Several English words once had a "g" which disappeared over time: "day," "may" (the verb, not the month), being two examples. By the way, with "may," its old past tense was "might," which has still retained the "g," albeit in combination with the "h." To this day, "may" and "might" are often interchangeable: "I may go to the movies tonight," or, "I might go to the movies tonight." 

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Nineteen

From the time of its founding in the 1850s, the Republican Party and Southerners were not made for one another, as the Republican Party was founded as an anti slavery party, a principle that automatically put that political entity on the opposite side of the South. The feeling of opposition, and outright hatred, toward the Republican Party in the South was so intense, that when the nation's first Republican president was elected in 1860, southern states began to secede from the United States and to join in a new national organization, the Confederate States of America. There was only one thing. The newly elected Republican president said a state could not secede from the United States and he was willing to use military force to prove it. And that's what happened, and hundreds of thousands died during the war. For a hundred years after the war, Southerners remained staunch Democrats, mainly for one reason, the Democratic Party was the opposition party to the Republicans. This commitment to the Democrats was challenged at times, especially like with Al Smith's Roman Catholicism during the 1928 election, as a strong fundamentalist Protestantism ran through much, but certainly not all, of Southern society, and Republican Herbert Hoover won some states of the "old Confederacy" (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Texas). The Great Depression and the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt patched up many cracks in the cement between Southerners and the Democratic Party, even though Roosevelt was a Northerner. Hoover's and some Republican's stubborn failure to embrace direct aid to millions of destitute Americans, but their just as stubborn desire to help business people, reinforced the already pro-business image of the GOP left by the Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge presidencies between 1921 and 1929. The image of Republicans as favoring the wealthy over the rest of Americans and of supporting "trickle down economics" * has remained stamped on their party right up until this day. Democratic stumbles and the move by Democrats to firmly become the party of progressive policies has made fear of change a target for Republicans to scare Americans into voting for them, in spite of their finger being on the scale for wealthy interests. When I was younger, if someone mentioned Republicans, there was a good chance you'd hear others immediately say how Republicans were for the rich. Economics can be seen and felt directly by people, and economic events can change people's opinions on economic policies. The Great Depression convinced many people that government was necessary to help regulate some aspects of business and to provide help in economic downturns, something that had been barely tried prior to that time (minimally by the Harding administration in the early 1920s). Franklin Roosevelt and Democrats were seen by many Americans to be the party that was for the average person. This feeling often overcame differences people may have had with some Democrats over many social and regulatory issues, but the moves by many Democrats to speak out for equal rights for black Americans began to split off Southern votes from Democratic presidential candidates, later followed by votes for governors and members of both houses of Congress. The 1980s began the turn of the tide on this political premise, as Republicans implied that many federal payouts went to people who were undeserving, who were cheating the system and, thus, misusing taxpayer money. On top of that, they offered tax cuts to Americans as a way to negate the Democratic economic advantage. Ronald Reagan essentially declared war on the federal government; still, many Americans didn't completely shed their image of the Republicans favoring the wealthy. And so it was with George H.W. Bush.

President Bush's term saw the United States oust Manuel Noriega as the leader of Panama, with Noriega being placed under arrest and sent to the U.S. for trial on drug trafficking charges. In Europe, communism was on its last leg, as communist regimes fell from power, including in East Germany, where the infamous "wall" came tumbling down. In the Middle East, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sent troops into neighboring Kuwait, a move that triggered a large scale military response led by the U.S. and Britain, but including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria. The outcome was never in doubt, as Iraqi forces in Kuwait were routed and fled back into their homeland. The military operations undertaken during Bush's first couple of years in office led to a soaring approval rate for the president, but the weakened economy of Reagan's last year or so carried over into Bush's presidency, and was worsened by the impact of high oil and gasoline prices as a consequence of the conflict in the Middle East. So now it came down to economics. The huge budget deficits of the Reagan years also carried into the Bush years. In an effort to take steps to reduce deficits, President Bush made a budget deal with Democrats that was a mix of budget cuts and tax increases. The problem for Bush was his oft quoted, "Read my lips, no new taxes," pledge. The right wing attacked Bush for breaking his pledge. Further, Bush, financially well off, was painted as out of touch with average people. Bush visited a convention of grocers and was shown the latest technology for scanning bar codes on various grocery packaging. His amazement was photographed and written about as if the President didn't know about every day things in American life, although initially the stories did not make clear that the technology demonstrated for Bush was indeed NEW, and not the technology of scanners that had already been in use.

In the midterm election in 1990, there were no party changes to any Senate seats in the former Confederacy. In the House of Representatives, Democrats gained one seat in Arkansas, making that delegation 3 Democrats and 1 Republican; Democrats gained one seat in Florida, making that delegation 10 Republicans and 9 Democrats; Republicans gained one seat in North Carolina to make the delegation 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans; Democrats gained one seat in Virginia to make the state's delegation 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans. The other former Confederate states had no changes in party composition to their delegations. Democrats won the governorships in Florida and in Texas.

* "Trickle down economics" is the idea that if you give benefits to the rich and businesses, that some of that benefit will "trickle down" to those less fortunate.

WORD HISTORY:
Forge-This word, related to "fabric," goes back to Indo European "dhab," which had the notion of "form or fashion something." This gave Latin "faber," meaning "worker in metals; thus, a smith." This then produced Latin "fabrica," meaning, "the workshop of a smith." This passed to Old French, a Latin-based language, as "faverge," which then became "forger." English borrowed the word in the 1300s. The verb form was taken from French "forgier." The idea of "forming, fashioning," came to include the meaning, "to fake or make up something." The derived word "forgery" came into use in English during the latter part of the 1500s.

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Eighteen

As Ronald Reagan's time in office drew near its end, his vice president, George H. W. Bush, made his own run for the presidency. While Bush was born and raised in New England, and his wife, Barbara, was born in New York City, they had made their permanent residence in Texas for several decades, and raised their family there (future president, George W. Bush, however, was actually born in Connecticut). Hardcore conservatives were uneasy about Bush, as he had opposed Reagan in the early primaries in 1980, and the term, "voodoo economics," about Reagan's economic plans, was used by George Bush in that primary campaign against Reagan. One of the major controversies for Bush was his role in "Iran-Contra." * Bush's defense was that he "was out of the loop;" and that he hadn't known about the illegal diversion of funds from the sale of weapons to Iran to Nicaragua. Since Reagan was then president, the main focus of investigation into the affair was to determine his role in it, as well as that of the active participants, and the independent counsel investigating the matter later admitted that Bush was not given the scrutiny he should have had. (More on this in the next part)

No question about it, racial issues were the initial matters that pulled Southerners into the Republican column over the decades, but another major issue to develop was over abortion. With religious fundamentalism so prominent in many parts of the South, and with Roman Catholicism having many adherents in Louisiana and Florida, the more Southerners who switched to the Republican Party, the more socially conservative the party had to become, and the more diminished social conservatism became in the Democratic Party. While this isn't always easily proven, politicians of whatever political party will say a lot of things just to get votes, or to mute criticism, even though their personal feelings may well be indifferent to a particular subject, or perhaps even on the other side of an issue. It's always been my feeling that Reagan announced conservative positions on some issues, because he and his advisers felt he had to do so, not because he necessarily agreed with a particular position, or that he was passionate about his "announced position." We saw that he would mention abortion in some speeches, but he never terribly pursued the issue in his policies. Still, fundamentalist religious people, led by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, both from former Confederate state, Virginia, never abandoned Reagan. On the other hand, Robertson actually entered the 1988 Republican presidential race, which included Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, besides then Vice President George Bush. Bush had been more to the pro-choice side of the abortion issue, and, over time, he and his family had generally supported family planning, an issue that was highly controversial in the United States in Bush's younger days, as contraception was illegal in many states and the promotion and mailing of contraceptive literature or devices was long against the national law (Comstock Law), and Catholicism and some Protestant fundamentalists were against contraception. Even sex education was not always supported by some. In the Republican primaries, George Bush, who had, at least nominally, gotten on board the anti-abortion wagon while serving under Reagan, had to declare his opposition without hesitation. Lee Atwater, who was born in Georgia, and who lived much of his life in South Carolina, was Bush's campaign manager. Bush easily won the Republican nomination, and he ran well in the former Confederate states, even though Pat Robertson remained in the race until mid May. To shore up his conservative credentials, and to appeal to the young conservatives of the 1980s, Bush chose Dan Quayle a senator from Indiana as his running mate. While a controversial pick, in that Quayle did not have much experience, he was very socially conservative.
   
On the Democratic side, Senator Al Gore of Tennessee dropped out of the race in April, although he won primaries in North Carolina and Tennessee. Jesse Jackson, of South Carolina, won primaries and caucuses in: Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas (a primary and caucus state, where he split with Dukakis. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, won only in Florida (and split in Texas) in the South, but he won a large number of states in the northern and western parts of the country to clinch the nomination. In an effort to appeal to Southerners, Dukakis chose Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas as his running mate.

In the general election campaign, Republicans tagged Dukakis, who was the governor of Massachusetts, as a "liberal," a word that had been so besmirched by conservatives during the 1980s, that some Democrats tried to avoid it, giving Republicans the glee of pointing out what they came to refer to as, "the 'L' word." Democrats took many a swipe at Dan Quayle for his inexperience and that, if the Bush-Quayle team were elected, that Quayle could turn out to be president. Bush appealed to the growing conservative element in the Republican Party by trying to assure doubters about his commitment to not raising taxes by saying, "Read my lips... no new taxes." There were other aspects to the 1988 campaign, but there is no point in going into detail, as Dukakis was very unlikely to carry southern states, and in the November vote, that proved to be the case, as Bush swept the states of the former Confederacy by wide margins. In total, Bush received about 53 1/2% of the national vote, to 45 1/2% for Dukakis. In the all important Electoral College, Bush won in a landslide, 446 to 111, and 1 for Bentsen, as one Democratic elector in West Virginia (a state carried by Dukakis/Bentsen) abandoned his pledge to support the Democratic candidate, and chose to vote for Bentsen for president.

In the U.S. Senate races in former Confederate states, Democrats captured a Republican seat in Virginia, while Republicans won Democratic seats in Florida and Mississippi. Overall, Democrats gained one seat nationally. In the House of Representatives in former Confederate states, Republicans gained 2 seats in Florida, making the delegation 10 Democrats and 9 Republicans; Democrats gained a seat in Georgia, making that delegation 9 Democrats and 1 Republican; in Texas, Democrats gained 2 seats to make the delegation 19 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Nationally, Democrats netted a 2 seat gain. Only North Carolina had a 1988 election for governor in the former Confederate states, and Republicans held that governorship. 

* I covered the basics of "Iran-Contra" in Part Seventeen" of this series. This is the link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-former-confederacy-modern-american_12.html

WORD HISTORY: 
Abort-This compound word, the second part of which is related to Latin-derived words borrowed by English, "origin," "original" and "originate," and now almost always used as a verb, but once used somewhat more commonly as a noun, goes back to Indo European "heri," which had the notion, "to spring forth, to arise:" thus by extension, "to come into existence, to be born." This gave Latin "oriri," with the same meanings. The "ab" part of the word is related to words of the Germanic languages meaning "off" and "of" (including these two English words) through Indo European "apo," which meant "away from, off (from)." The combined terms gave Latin "aboriri," meaning, "to miscarry, to end a pregnancy, to disappear." Its participle was "abortus," which was borrowed by English as "abort" in the mid 1500s.

2017, Another Year, We Aren't Here Long

The lights flash and 2016 becomes 2017. No, we aren't here for long, and some are here for a very short time. As 2016 gasped for breath, lives were shortened by the religion of hate at a celebration of life. Oh Berlin!* So, we enter 2017 with more bloodshed. At least 39 lives shortened by the criminality of hate and done in the name of religion. Oh Istanbul!** And the new political order of American government plans its own hateful assault on the planet, on the poor, on the sick. It comes twisted and tangled with religion; religion concocted by greedy and hateful minds to sanctify their hateful actions. More religion of hate. Oh Washington, DC!

No, we aren't here for long. We go through life meeting people, with some people drifting into our lives, while others disappear. What happened to them? The people we knew as children, how many have we seen since those times? The kids we met throughout our schooling, how many of them have we seen since those days? We feel the passing of time and we witness the loss of those around us; family members, friends and those who entertained us. Fewer and fewer to comfort us or to make us laugh. Can we work together to keep ourselves alive a while longer? Or do we want the religion of hate to keep us divided until we too are no more?

* Just prior to Christmas in 2016, a truck was driven into a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany by a Tunisian man with connections to the ISIS terrorist network. A dozen people were killed and more than three times that number were injured. The truck used in the attack had been hijacked by the  Tunisian terrorist who shot and killed the driver.

** In December 2016 a car bombing and a suicide bombing in Istanbul, Turkey killed dozens and injured more than 160. The attack was planned and executed by a Kurdish independence group. Earlier in 2016, there was a ISIS related attack on the Istanbul airport killing some 45 and injuring more than 200.  

WORD HISTORY:
We-This common pronoun goes back to Indo European "we/wey," which, indeed, meant "we." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wiz," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "we," and it has remained as such for all of these centuries. The other Germanic languages have: German "wir," Low German Saxon "wi," Dutch "wij," West Frisian "wy," Danish, Norwegian, Swedish "vi," and Icelandic "við" (essentially equivalent to "vith," and the "ð" is called an "eth," which was once also used in English). 

On Your Death Bed ... Reflecting

Lying on your death bed, what will you be thinking? Will it be, "Wow, I'm so proud of the nastiness and hatred I felt and tried to spread in my life. It makes me feel so good! I'm so happy I supported and witnessed the way Donald Trump made America hate again; how Ted Cruz and other far right wing supporters ranted against modern times and opposed the rights of some people to love one another. Gee they make me proud. There weren't many as brave as Trump, Cruz, Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Hannity, and of course, Ann Coulter, who might be a better hater than all of them combined, well, except for maybe the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members cloaked their hate in religion. What a great bunch! 

Yes, I'm proud of my hate and nastiness and I celebrate the hater in chief, Adolf Hitler. Now Hitler was a hater to make other haters super proud, a role model any want to be hater can look up to. Even as his life ticked down in its last hours, old Adolf kept hating, he never quit. In those last hours, he even had his own brother-in-law shot and he ranted against Jews in his final testament, so he never changed his positions, he stayed true to his hate. Wow, what a guy! And how about that Magda Goebbels? She was the wife of Joseph Goebbels, a great hater in his own right. It takes quite a hater to murder your own six kids, but Magda proved she was up to the task of being a true hater, supported by Joe, of course. So to all of you liberals, see, I don't discriminate against women.

So, like my hero, old Adolf, as I prepare to leave this world, I remain true to the cause of hate and I offer a big 'thank you' to all who have ever helped to prevent other human beings from receiving food, shelter or medical care, and an even bigger shout out, if it was to give tax cuts to billionaires, the truly needy among us; also to those who worked or spoke against military veterans and their families; who promoted war over peace; who knowingly trashed the planet, especially to pad their bank accounts; who promoted hatred against different races, religions, ethnicities, or hell, anything different from themselves, especially to derive political power. There are so many hateful things people do, I can't even think of all of them, but you've all earned the thanks of this grateful hater. And unlike some of you, I and Adolf don't claim to have our hate sanctified by a deity or deities, we just plain HATE!"

So is this how you would like to be remembered, even if not quite as extreme as I've presented here? None of us is perfect, but some are so hate filled and show little or no attempt to retreat from their hate. Assessing your own life and feelings is a start, so reflect now, before you go to your death bed.  

WORD HISTORY: 
Legacy-This word is related to "legation" and "delegation," but its distant Indo European origin presented here is not firm, although I am "definitely maybe" convinced. It was borrowed in the latter part of the 1300s from French "legacie," which meant, "group of envoys or deputies with written orders to fulfill a given task or tasks." This came from Latin "legatia," "an area over which a deputy has jurisdiction," from Latin "legatus," which meant, "deputy, envoy, official, officer, someone given power by a higher authority," from Latin "legare," a verb with the broad meaning, "to pick, to gather;" ^ thus, "choose," and in a specific sense, "to send a 'chosen' person or group (thus, "authorized") on a mission." This came from Latin "lex," which meant "law," perhaps from the idea, "gathered words used to rule, or in a contract." This went back to Indo European "leg-," which had the notion, "to gather, collect, pick."  

^ It also meant "to read," from the notion of picking out written markings and deciphering them." 

Orlando: Our Tears Show Sadness, Not Weakness

At this terrible time of mourning, parents and family members who scorn, reject or isolate gay children or other family members, let this tremendous loss of life show you how misplaced your feelings and fears are. Our lives are fleeting enough, without hate seeking to do us in. Some parents may have only found out their child was gay when they were informed of their death or wounding in this massacre of innocent people. Religion used as a cover to spread hate needs to be called out. DON'T BE STILL, SPEAK OUT! Our tears show sadness, not weakness. Remember the victims, their families, their friends. Donate in some way to help comfort those who suffered loss and to help those who survived, for even those untouched by bullets will bear the scars of this tragedy for the rest of their lives. No matter how much our hearts ache, WE ARE STRONG, WE HAVE STRENGTH!

WORD HISTORY:
Strength-This word, derived from the ancestor of "strong," goes back to Indo European "streng/strenk," which had the notion of "tight, taut." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "strangiþu" (þ essentially equals "th"), meaning "strongness." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "strengþu," with the general meaning, "physical strongness, firmness in body or spirit." This then became "strengthe" (ending 'e' pronounced 'eh'), before the modern form. The close relationship between "strong" and "strength" makes it difficult to separate the exact meanings, as they often overlap, so I will list only a few, but German has "Strenge" (hardness, toughness, strictness, harshness), Low German "Strengde" (harshness, strictness), Dutch "strengte" (strict, stern, severe).  

"The Exorcist" Stunned Audiences, Conclusion

Much earlier, before any trouble started, the daughter had questioned her mother's relationship with the movie director (played by Jack MacGowran), seemingly fearful that her mother would marry him, thus quashing any chance of a reconciliation between her parents. When the mother learns that the director has been killed in a supposed fall down the long series of steps to the street right below her daughter's bedroom window, she begins to worry that her daughter had something to do with his death, especially when an old detective (played by Lee J. Cobb, a favorite of mine) comes to the house asking questions, and relating how the director's body had been found at the bottom of the steps with his head turned clear around. The detective then theorizes that the director had been killed by a powerful man and then his body had then been pushed down the stairway. By the time of the detective's visit, the mother had already learned that the director had been left alone with the child, as the caretaker that night had gone out to pick up the girl's prescription at the drug store. This all brings another question: was the girl's dislike of the director the real motive for his murder?

Further, a statue at the local Catholic church has been severely defaced, a case the detective is also investigating. This brings him into contact with the troubled priest and a possible connection between the director's death and the defacing of the religious statue. Since the priest sees other priests with mental problems, the detective wonders if there is a psychotic priest on the loose.

During the troubled priest's first visit to the little girl, she mentions his mother, and the game of playing on his guilty conscience begins. She spews a green vomit into his face (you may never eat split pea soup again). The priest still seeks to use logic and medical science to help the girl, even though he witnessed more than the girl acting a bit bizarrely, like her knowledge of things a normal person could not possibly have known beforehand, and her markedly grotesque facial features. He goes to the church authorities to get permission to perform an exorcism (a driving out of an evil spirit). He is told by the bishop that, while he can assist, he wants to find a priest with experience in exorcism. This brings the situation back to the old priest we encountered at the beginning. He has returned from the archeological dig in Iraq, and is waiting to be summoned to fight the battle with the demon he confronted years  before. The summons comes.

The exorcist arrives at the house and meets the other priest. Still the man of logic, the young priest offers to explain the background of the case, only to be asked by the exorcist, "Why?" They proceed into the girl's bedroom where they are met by bellowing and ranting by the ferocious demon. Obscenities fly from the mouth of the girl, as the two priests recite the exorcism ritual. The young priest wavers at the display of power and evil from the demon, and the old priest has to keep him focused. The girl's body breaks the security straps on her wrists and ankles, and the body levitates. Things subside and the old priest decides they should rest before continuing. He goes off and places a nitroglycerin pill under his tongue to help his ailing heart. The young priest, seemingly quite discouraged, sits down and the girl's mother asks him if her daughter will die. This is like a slap in the face to the despondent priest, and he emphatically answers, "No!"

He goes back to the girl's bedroom, where the old priest had returned minutes before. There he finds the old priest slumped over dead from a heart attack. The girl is sitting to the side of the bed and begins laughing. The priest grabs her, throws her to the floor and begins beating her with his fists. He yells, "Come into me," and we see a change in his face as the demon tries to enter his body, and we hear the real voice of the crying little girl in the background. During the fight on the floor, the girl snatches his Jesuit medal chain from around his neck. The priest summons all his power and crashes through the bedroom window, where he then plummets down the same long series of steps to the pavement far below. People come running from everywhere, including another priest, who is his best friend. He administers the last rites and the priest dies.

The scene jumps to when the mother and daughter are preparing to leave Washington and as they leave the house, the dead priest's friend is standing there. They talk a moment, and although we hear that the little girl doesn't remember anything from the possession, she focuses on the priest's collar, and she steps over and gives him a kiss on the cheek.

As I mentioned in the first part, this movie caused quite a stir. The special effects, complete with twisting head, levitating body, blood and green vomit, had never been seen in a "public" movie before. The vulgar language, the visual sexual references and the religious sacrilege were quite astonishing for those times, and people flocked to the theaters, as the public couldn't get enough. Hmm, who knows what dark demons lie within any of us?  

The DVD part of the photo is from the Warner Home Video 2012 DVD.

WORD HISTORY:
Demon-This word for an "evil spirit" goes back to Indo European "da/di," which had the notion of "divide, separate into pieces." This gave Ancient Greek "daimon," with the meaning "spirit of destiny/guidance;" thus also, "god," from the notion of "parceling out guidance, destiny," but it seems the word was used in religious terms for "evil spirit." Latin borrowed the word as "daemon," with the meaning "spirit," along with the religious "evil spirit." English borrowed the word in the 1200s. 

"The Exorcist" Stunned Audiences

When this movie came out in late 1973, it created a sensation in the public the likes of which I've rarely seen. Everywhere you went people were talking about this film and the theaters were packed. I went to see it twice, but perhaps three times. Many of us like to be scared, at least a little, but this film absolutely terrified some people. Based on the book of the same name by William Peter Blatty, which was published a few years before, the book sales soared along with the box office receipts. Blatty, who was raised Catholic, based his novel on a real case of exorcism performed some twenty plus years before.

The story is the classic struggle between good and evil. We can't kill evil in the true sense, for like in the Halloween movies, you think evil (Jason) is dead, but it isn't, it lives to come back at another time, and it lives within us, like a cold sore virus, waiting for an opportunity to manifest itself again. Conquering our own worst characteristics can be very difficult, especially for some, and those characteristics are then available for exploitation (the Nazis almost made a science out of exploiting the awful side of human nature, and then whipping it into pure hate). But we have choices to make, and likely you all have seen the cartoon of a person with an angel on one shoulder and the devil or a demon on other, both talking into the person's ears to convince them to choose their desired course. John Steinbeck used the same sort of theme in his great book, "East of Eden," which was another good versus evil saga, but with the idea that humans "may" choose their own course. This idea of "choice" also shows that we can't have good without evil (see Word History, below).

The story of "The Exorcist" revolves around a little girl, played by Linda Blair, living with her actress mother (played by Ellen Burstyn) in Washington, DC, while a movie is being filmed. They have a German couple (Swiss German?)* to take care of the house. The director of the movie being filmed in Washington, who is usually drunk, taunts the man for having been a Nazi, but the obviously perturbed man always uneasily says, "I'm Swiss." The girl's parents are separated, and as her birthday arrives, she overhears her mother using abusive and profanity laden words in a telephone call to the seemingly uncaring father, who is in Europe. The contrast is, the mother deeply loves and cares about her daughter, while the father, "... doesn't give a shit," per dialog from the movie. Does this lack of a father's love leave the girl vulnerable to evil? Does a possible former Nazi make the house and the girl a target?

After a series of odd noises are heard coming from the attic, the little girl begins to display behavior out of character for her, including bad language, a situation that grows increasingly worse. After all sorts of doctors and tests, and scans, the situation deteriorates further, as the child's bed shakes and quakes, even when the mother jumps onto the bed to help her daughter. The doctors insist there is a problem in the girl's brain, even when they too witness an episode of the bed shaking and even lifting off the floor. This all demonstrates their desire to apply logic to the illogical. Eventually the doctors tell the mother to seek religious help for girl, whom they say believes she is possessed by a demon.

Meanwhile, the film had opened at an archeological dig site in Iraq, where one of the artifacts recovered is a small demon-like figurine. The head of the expedition is a Catholic priest (played by Max von Sydow) who recognizes the figurine as a demon he has encountered before. He goes to an area with a large statue of the same demon. He stands opposite of the demon, thus depicting the coming battle of  "good versus evil."

Then we meet another priest (played by Jason Miller), who is in Washington, D.C., and who is a psychiatric counselor for troubled priests. The job has taken a toll on the relatively young priest, who sees clergymen who are questioning their very faith, a situation he also begins to face. The man had left home and his Greek immigrant mother, to join the priesthood, but as his mother's health declines, his conscience continues to trouble him, bringing him to a severe crisis of faith when his mother dies without him being there. When the little girl's mother seeks religious help for her daughter (they had no particular religious beliefs), she meets with this priest, who tells her the doctors are likely correct in their diagnosis of a brain problem. When he goes to the house, where the girl is now confined to bed, we see a now largely disfigured girl, whose voice too has dramatically changed.**

More and the conclusion coming next ....       

* How many Germans/Austrians claimed to be Swiss Germans after World War Two, I can't say, but the idea was not uncommon in the public mind and, thus, in the world of movies and television. The idea was, Germans/Austrians were trying to distance themselves from the Nazis and their crimes, crimes they themselves may have committed, so they presented themselves as Swiss Germans to avoid the suspicion of having been a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer. Switzerland was neutral during the war, although more than 2/3 of the population is of German background. The claims to be "Swiss" didn't always help, however, as suspicions of anyone with a German accent lingered long thereafter. The 1960's NBC comedy "Get Smart" had an episode that demonstrated in a comedic way this whole "Swiss German" situation. Secret agent Maxwell Smart was on a remote island with some other people, including a man with a heavy German accent, who always said he was Swiss. The man also claimed to be a clock maker, but when the cuckoo clock he had struck the hour, a little Hitler figure with outstretched arm came out and shouted, "Sieg heil! Sieg heil!" When Max told the man it wasn't two o'clock, the guy answered, "If he says it's 2 o'clock, you'd better believe him."       

** The voice for the demon was done being actress Mercedes McCambridge, who much earlier had won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in the movie, "All The King's Men."

The photo is of the Warner Home Video 2012 DVD.

WORD HISTORY:
Evil-This word, used primarily as a noun and adjective, and of somewhat shaky distant ancestry, "seems" to go back to Indo European "upelo," which had the notion of "passing a limit/boundary." This gave Old Germanic "ubilaz," with the meaning of "bad." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "yfel," with the broad meaning, "bad, injury or illness causing, evil." This then evoled into modern "evil," but the meaning became more specific to "moral baseness, wickedness," as "bad" took over the more general meaning. The other Germanic languages have: German has "Übel" (evil, illness, nasty, wicked), Low German Saxon "övel" (ill, unwell), Dutch "euvel" (evil, flaw), West Frisian "evel" (now archaic), the North Germanic languages (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic) do not use forms of the word. 

All-Powerful Deities Don't Need Your Help

To the religious fanatics of ALL faiths: If you believe your particular deity is all powerful, then that deity does not need your help by you committing atrocities against people you do not like. Plain and simple, you are going against the laws of most religions by killing and maiming others. You are murderers, not martyrs. We may not like some of the views of others, but the inability for us to deal with differing points of view shows weakness, not strength.

WORD HISTORY:
Deity-This word, related to "Tuesday," ^ and to Greek "Zeus," goes back to Indo European "deiwos," which meant "god." It was derived from Indo European "deyw/dyeu," which had the notion of "bright, shining," and by extension, of "sky," which led to the idea of "deiwos" meaning "god," as many gods were thought to live in the sky, also known as "the heavens." This gave Latin "deiuos," which then produced "deus" (god). This then gave Latin "deitas," meaning "godly way, divine manner." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "deité," with the same meaning. English borrowed the word from French in the 1300s, but the meaning eventually altered to become "god."  

^ For the history of the word "Tuesday," this is the link:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/05/word-on-tuesday.html 

Are You Using Your Religion To Hurt Others?

Music group R.E.M. did a song in the early 1990s called "Losing My Religion," but I think some people could do a song with the title "Using My Religion," because they twist and turn their religion into what they want it to be. And what they want it to be is a validation of their lives, no matter how contrary to their actual religion they live their lives. We have people from so many religions using those religions to behead or bomb others, even killing people who traveled to help sick and injured people in other countries. Then we have those who send others to commit suicide by carrying bombs into crowds, trying to take as many lives as possible. We have politicians claiming religion, while they plot to cut benefits to some of the country's and the world's poorest and most vulnerable citizens, with the further intent of giving tax breaks to corporations and to some of the wealthiest people on earth, many of whom in the last few years have already seen their incomes rise far more than those less well off. While not everyone will agree with me, I see religion as being a force to comfort people in times of hardship, not a force to be turned on others to kill, maim, inflict mental anguish or pillage. When religion is used to strike terror into the hearts of others, it ceases to be religious.

The perverted forms of religion aren't going to go away, so we have to learn how to deal with them. We need to start with ourselves. Each of us needs to think for ourselves. We need to stop saying that things written a couple of hundred years ago or thousands of years ago can't be challenged or changed if need be. People from long ago didn't usually have the means to see the universe or the world in the broad way we can see it in more modern times. The vast majority of people likely lived and died in a small circumference of where they were born. People in one area didn't even know there were people elsewhere in the world, because their immediate area WAS their world. We can excuse the people from back then their narrow views, but for us, with so much information and so many ways to access it, to restrict our views to those of centuries ago is just ignorance. The past isn't always bad, and it carries many lessons, but we have to live in the present, otherwise, with the weapons we now have, and the hatred stirred by some claiming religious dogmas from long ago, we might not make it into the future.

WORD HISTORY:
Scathe (Scathing)-This word, now more commonly used in the adjectival form "scathing," as well as in the negative form, "unscathed," goes back to Indo European "sket," which had the notion of "to damage, to harm, to injure." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skatha," with the same meanings. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the noun "sceatha," meaning "injury, harm," and the verb "sceathan," meaning "to harm or injure," which became "scathe" and "scathen, respectively, before settling on "scathe" for both. The hard "c" sound "may" have been picked up from the closely related Old Norse, "skatha." Old Norse was another Germanic language brought in some measure to England by the Danes and Norwegians, although often just termed "Danes." The modern usage of "scathing" means, "harsh and injurious criticism;" while "unscathed" simply means "unharmed." Common in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German have the verb "schaden" ("to harm, to damage"), as well as the noun "Schaden" (damage); Dutch noun "schade" (damage, injury) and verb "schade," more modernly as "beschadigen" (to damage, to hurt); Icelandic noun "skathi" (damage, harm) and verb form "skatha"; Danish and Norwegian noun "skade" (damage, harm) and the same form as the verb; and Swedish noun "skada" (damage, harm, wound) and the same form for the verb.

Rolling Back Fascism Is Not Easy, Part Four

First published January 2013

"Right Wing Extremism" 

Maybe we humans need a certain amount of fear in our lives, I don't know. Is that why we stand in long lines to ride roller coasters and try to find the spookiest haunted houses at Halloween time? Scaring the hell out of us is a pretty major industry. With communism not providing the scariness of times past, the political right has looked around for a new form of "haunted house," although some still like to return to the "communist threat," calling some people, usually Democrats, "communists," or "socialists," a word many people don't really understand. Islamist extremists, likened to fascists by some, galvanized Americans and others to oppose such extremism in other countries, all the while letting our own fascists hide out and grow under the guise of patriotism, as they wrapped themselves in the flag, and some also, in religion, usually Christianity, proving only that anyone can call themselves a Christian, without ever really understanding Christianity.

 In case you haven't noticed, right wingers also like to "claim" to be protectors of the Constitution, like over gun control, for instance; but, like their perversion of Christianity, their misunderstanding (deliberate or not) of "socialism," especially as it relates to Christianity, they have conveniently interpreted the Constitution favorably toward their own extremist views. This is the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." They continuously quote the last part, without reference to the first part about a "well regulated Militia." It is not a coincidence, in my opinion, that many American fascist groups call their groups "militias." They use the false argument of " they want to take our guns away," when "most" supporters of gun control simply want some reasonable restrictions like the ban on assault weapons reinstated and bans on large magazines of ammunition implemented, but the fascists and the far right continue to maintain  that gun control supporters "want to ban guns." Former Governor Haley Barbour, also a former Republican Chairman, should have been challenged for spouting this nonsense on a recent Meet the Press, but host David Gregory was silent, as were other members on the panel. You don't defeat such nonsense by letting it go unchallenged. Some of the outspoken right wingers have noted that the possession of guns can be used to "protect" them from the government, or I suppose, be used in some violent overthrow of the government. You don't need machine guns and other automatic weapons, or huge arsenals, to go hunt ducks.

It's much the same with the right wing argument, "we just want to scale back the size of government before it takes over." Such a basic concept (and the fear behind it) appeals to some people because it deliberately fails to spell out what their vision of "scaling back government" actually means, which is essentially "we don't want Americans to have heath care, or unemployment benefits, or job training dammit! I've got mine, the hell with you!" Don't be surprised if they interrupt to say, "Oh excuse me, I can't discuss this any more, I've got to go to church. I'm a Christian." They give people truly trying to be Christians a bad name; thus, those trying to be Christians also need to set the record straight and let everyone know that the reprehensible talk and actions of these extremists, who cloak themselves in Christianity, do NOT represent them. What is both exasperating and frightening to me is, however, that some people who have benefited from government programs or unions (by directly belonging to a union, or benefiting from the standards set by union negotiations) are now on the side of the right wing. "Do as I say, not as I do." All of us have disconnects at times, but these folks need to reestablish contact with their own lives and pasts, quickly.

Having debates about the size and operations of government is legitimate and does not make one a fascist, but don't forget the company you are keeping and how to keep that company on the fringe of American politics, where it belongs.

Next.. Final part.

WORD HISTORY:
Gnaw-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain, although it "may" be from sound imitation. Old Germanic had "gnaganan," which meant "to bite something consistently for a period of time in the hope of wearing it down, to bite off small pieces over a period of time." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "gnagan," with the same meaning. This then became "gnawen," before the modern version. Other Germanic languages have: German "nagen" (previously spelled "gnagan"), Dutch "knagen," Low German Saxon "gnagen," Danish "gnave," Icelandic "naga," Norwegian "gnage," Swedish "gnaga." Frisian apparently does not use a form of the word, at least not in this context.

Extremist Religion Can Be Hazardous To Everyone's Health

Billions of people world wide have various religious beliefs, and many even have strong religious beliefs, but they go about their lives, they go to work, they go to their places of worship, and they don't hurt or bother anyone else over religion. If someone doesn't agree with them, they may wish it were otherwise, but they go about their business. If someone makes fun of them or their religion, they may not like it, they may even get angry, but they contain themselves and move on. Then there are those who have such fanatical religious beliefs, that anyone who dares to disagree with their religious view in any way faces severe repercussions. I just saw where in Bangladesh, a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, some Muslims rampaged through a Buddhist area destroying Buddhist temples and burning Buddhist homes, because of a photo posted on Facebook by ONE Buddhist which some Muslims felt insulted Islam. (The story said "one" Buddhist posted the picture, and the story provided no details about the picture.) The government there is trying to keep a lid on things now.

I needn't tell any half way sane person, this behavior is lunacy! It is nonsense out of the Middles Ages, which needed to die in the Middle Ages along with the plague, to which it bears a serious resemblance. It threatens EVERYONE! However, both the plague and such antiquated religious fervor survived the Middle Ages, and to be quite honest, no one really knows what to do about the latter. Unless you've been visiting another planet lately, and some people seem to do so, you are also aware of protests and violence in many Muslim areas of the world directed at the United States over a film made by a guy in California (born in Egypt), a film which was unknown to virtually every human being not visiting another planet before the violence started, which Muslims say insulted their Prophet Mohammad, a charge I believe is likely true (although I didn't see the film), but the extreme reaction to the film has only served to give it more publicity and to give Muslims an increasingly negative image in many parts of the world, an image perhaps exaggerated, since not all Muslims, nor even most Muslims, rose up and started lashing out at the United States. Folks, most of us probably get insulted every day, or at least every week, but people who are seriously troubled about their beliefs are the dangerous ones, since people who feel confident in themselves and any beliefs, religious or political, don't run around in a panic, lashing out at others, because someone said something about them. The fearful ones try to suppress differing views or go out of their way to prove their beliefs are stronger by attacking others. These are signs of weakness, not strength. Such insecure people wall themselves off, fearful someone or some view might actually change them, and they're terrified! "What if my beliefs are wrong? Ahhhhhhhhh! I don't want to know!"

Communism in eastern Europe built walls and barbed-wire fences, complete with armed guards in gun towers, for the announced purpose of keeping aggressors out of their "paradise," but the propaganda fooled no one, as the walls and fences were built to keep their own people from experiencing anything beyond their own imagined "Garden of Eden," because they were too afraid their own ideas and life style could not stand up in comparison or criticism. Such weak egos are VERY dangerous. Some people don't want to know or to search for truth. They are content with their beliefs, and they don't care how flawed their beliefs might be. "Two plus two is five," and they are happy to believe that and they don't want anyone telling them it's three...ah, wait a second, let's see... oh...four! The whole point is, weak leaders exploit the lack of education and backwardness of some to keep control of such people.

Like it, not like it, change requires criticism, something none of us is especially fond of when it is directed at us. Moderates, or people who really practice peaceful religion do not always speak up, so the fanatics take over. Remember, you may feel very strongly about your religion, but your religion is sacred to YOU, not necessarily to others. I try to accept people's religious beliefs, but behavior such as that mentioned above makes it very difficult. This kind of religious terror, however,  is a reality and we're going to have to live or die with it. When you have "elements of a religion" (not everyone) say that no one can criticize their religion, or we'll kill you, there's no room for any discussion with such people. When you have these same elements attacking members of other religions or nationals from other countries, just because one person, or one small group of people affiliated with a particular religion or nation, insulted their religion, this has all the ingredients of major world tension for a long, long time to come; and that's if we don't blow the world to pieces over such things first.

Christianity also has fanatics and the history of Christianity is not pretty. It is filled with hatred, violence, killing and intolerance; and that's just among people who called themselves Christians! Christianity also has been highly intolerant of other religions, although some of that has lessened in more recent times, especially in relation to Judaism. Islam has also had such a troubled history within its own ranks. Christianity and Islam have had a very contentious relationship throughout history, but with periods of relative peace. People from both religions have perpetrated atrocities against members of the other religion. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between religious and political fanatics, since some fanatics wrap themselves in the garb of religion to spew their hatred. As I said, I generally respect people's religious beliefs, but some things are not purely religious, nor can we allow zealots to try to pull us back to medieval, or even to ancient, times.

WORD HISTORY:
Fanatic-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. It goes back to Latin "fanum," which meant "temple." This then produced "fanaticus," which had the notion of "something derived from the temple," which then led to the extended meaning "inspired by a deity." The fervor of some religious people in Roman times led to the further meaning "frenzied or overzealous religious person," a further development of which dropped the religious necessity to become "mad, insane person." English borrowed the word in the earlier part of the 1500s, but its pronunciation apparently was strongly influenced by French "fanatique," a word Latin-based French inherited from its Latin ancestor. In English the word gradually assumed the meaning "overzealous person," a meaning even used in Roman times.  

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.

"Gandhi," The Movie & History, Part Two

Mohandas Gandhi chose to "fight" British rule of India by peaceful means, through non-cooperation with the colonial government. There is a scene in the movie "Gandhi," where Gandhi tells other, less patient and less peaceful, Indian leaders, in speaking about the British, "I want to change their minds, not kill them for weaknesses we all possess." Now, I can't tell you if Gandhi ever really said that in real life (I've tried to find it, but without success), or if this came from a scriptwriter, but the basic part of the statement was a major part of his non violent campaign to gain independence. That line has stayed with me for all of these years, and maybe regular readers have noticed, when writing about politics or economics, I frequently say things like, "both sides do it," or "such and such is human nature," or "most people want or do this or that." After all, for instance, we're all greedy to some extent, but those with great power have the ability to exploit others to try to satisfy their greed, and they need to have some restraints placed upon them, lest they destroy the lives of others, and perhaps even themselves eventually, as the exploited turn on them with a vengeance.

Gandhi was arrested several times and spent the equivalent of about 6 to 7 years of his life in prison in India (he also was jailed in South Africa earlier). Other Indian leaders were also jailed. He picked his times and places for non violent protests with great thought, including one that had Gandhi and supporters walk (it was called a "march") nearly 250 miles to the sea over more than a three week period, building the suspense and news coverage, and then pick up small lumps of salt from the beach in violation of colonial law.* Gandhi was later arrested, but another major part of the protest took place at a nearby salt works, and it occurred without Gandhi. News coverage was extensive, depicting how peaceful Indians were clubbed by police. The Indians did not fight back as the clubs fractured several skulls, and reportedly a few hundred Indians were hospitalized, and a couple died. Reports went around the world, and people everywhere began to question British rule of India, although these protests did not in themselves result in Indian independence.

Next, in Part Three, a little more on Mahatma Gandhi 

* The British had implemented a monopoly on salt production and collection in India, and they taxed it too. Salt is a necessary mineral for life, and it was especially so in India's hot climate. While the tax was not particularly high, India's population was terribly impoverished, making it difficult for many to pay the tax and buy the salt on extremely limited incomes. The salt was there for the taking from coastal areas, but it was against the law for Indians to take it without paying the tax.   

Photo is of DVD edition released in 2001 by Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment.

  WORD HISTORY:
Sikh-A "Sikh" is a person from a particular religious sect in India which was established in the mid 1400s in Punjab, a region of northern India at that time, and now a region divided between India and Pakistan. English traders established trading posts in India in the early 1600s, from which eventually developed colonial rule over the area, which then included modern Pakistan and Bangladesh. The use of the term "Sikh" seems to have become more widespread in English usage by the mid to late 1700s. "Sikh" traces back to ancient Sanskrit, an early Indo European dialect/language that still exists, and the Sanskrit word "siksati," which means "a student, one who learns." This gave "Punjabi" and "Hindi"^ the term "sikh," which means "a student of, or disciple of."   

^ Both Punjabi and Hindi are Indo European languages and are thus related to English, but further down the family tree. Punjabi is spoken extensively in Pakistan and northwestern India. Hindi is the official language of government in India, along with.....English!

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 Six

This was first published in early 2012. 

"Polarization of Spain Brings Civil War" Part 1

The American Civil War was fought over "states' rights," and more specifically over the issue of slavery, and whether states had a right to permit slavery within their own borders, or whether the national government had a right to outlaw slavery throughout the land. The practice of slavery was well established in the southern parts of the country, especially, but not exclusively, on large estates (plantations), and many prominent early Americans, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. More and more Americans of those times came to view slavery as morally wrong, although opposition came to be concentrated in northern states, with states bordering the north and south facing divided public opinion.* Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president,** was a staunch foe of slavery, and his election brought the declaration from a number of southern states that they were leaving the "Union;" that is, the United States, to form a "confederation" of states; thus, the term "Confederacy." Lincoln said states could not leave the "Union," and a violent war began to settle the issue (for those times).***

Spain was a monarchy until 1931, when King Alfonso XIII abdicated (he literally left the country). The king, the Roman Catholic Church, the army and wealthy interests, including industrialists, had had the largest say in the governance of Spain,**** and the strains on Spanish society were becoming more and more evident, as reforms to help protect workers, farmers, and regional interests were not carried through. The Spanish socialist party became increasingly popular, along with strong anti church elements, and pro-democracy elements.***** In elections in 1931, this "coalition" group won a majority in elections, the king left the country, and a "republic" was declared. All seemed well on the surface, and it appeared Spain would move forward, but opposition to the new republic from entrenched interests quickly mobilized to prevent change.

* The southern states of America were generally not as densely populated as northern states, and the availability of land for farming, combined with the longer growing season, made agriculture a major part of the southern economy, with labor intense cotton being one of the main crops, as it was also sold overseas. The long tradition of slave labor in the region carried over from colonial times to the decades after American independence.

** The Republican Party had been established with a strong anti-slavery element. Lincoln's candidacy prompted southerners to flock to the Democratic Party, where they and their descendants remained until the last couple of decades, when they began voting Republican, even if not always at first registering as Republicans. The Democratic Party maintained a staunch segregationist element from the post-Civil War era until a number of prominent Democrats began to push for an end to segregation and for laws to try to make the country fairer. More and more the segregationist elements voted Republican or became Republicans, undoubtedly causing Lincoln several turns in his grave. So historically, neither major political party is without guilt, but at least Democrats basically got over it. Republicans took their party's roots and chopped them off.

*** I say "for those times," because just in the last couple of years some Republicans in southern states, including Governor Perry of Texas, have suggested they might want to secede from the "Union," mainly because of President Obama's health care plan. Such talk has now subsided, but it is interesting that the Republican South, undoubtedly the most fundamentalist Christian (by their definition; keep reading) part of the country, and Rick Perry, who flaunts his Christianity so publicly, would talk of secession from the country, because a president wants to help Americans who don't have health insurance! I'm not saying you have to support Obama's plan (I wasn't especially thrilled by it, but for different reasons), but to essentially say to those who don't have access to adequate health care, "The hell with you! I've got mine, go get yours," is just astounding. It shows how human beings make religion to be whatever we want it to be, AT THE MOMENT. Christianity especially does NOT advocate selfishness, accumulation of wealth, turning your back on the needy or sick, but, quite to the contrary, the OPPOSITE OF THESE THINGS! Going to church, singing hymns, memorizing Bible verses, saying "God loves you," and forming social cliques is not Christianity, although many seem to believe that is its purpose. Oooo, I can feel the condemnations now! But for those condemning me, you'd better go look in that mirror and ask yourself some tough questions. And no "spinning" the answers to come out the way you want them to come out; that is, "making religion be what you want it to be, at the moment."

**** There was a military government throughout much of the 1920s, but it grew increasingly unpopular, including with the wealthy, since the government raised their taxes to help pay for public works projects. Hm, you don't think there's a similarity to modern America here, do you? The government, which was supported by the king, succeeded in angering just about every segment of Spanish society with oppressive policies or by not following through on promised reforms; thus further tarnishing the king, who already had a reputation as anti-democratic.

***** The Roman Catholic Church had had tremendous influence in Spain for centuries. Since the Church tended to support the rulers of Spain, it too was seen by a certain segment of the population as being part of the country's problems.

WORD HISTORY:
Civil-It "seems" this word, closely related to "civic" (not a Honda), goes back to Indo European "k(h)ei," with the meaning "settle, lie down;" thus, "homestead," and also the figurative noun sense, "family" (from the homestead/settle notion). This gave its Latin offspring "civis," which meant "citizen" (here again, the "homestead, settle, and family notions tie in). This then produced Latin "civilis," with the meaning "pertaining to the public, to citizens." Old French, a Latin-based language, "inherited" the word as "civil," and English borrowed it from French in the late 1300s (the Middle English period). The further notion of "courteous, polite," as in "civil discussion," seems to have been picked up by English in the 1500s, as Latin had developed that same meaning, derived from the idea of regular citizens being more polite than military and religious authorities.