"We Need Success, Not Excess"

Being in business isn't easy; some people make it, many do not survive for very long. Most Americans want business people to succeed. We aren't rooting for their failure, we want them to do well, and we realize they have invested money, work and time in these ventures. But we've seen an alarming concentration of wealth in the last three + decades, and not among our local grocery stores, service stations, or hardware stores, rather this concentration of wealth has been led by members of the "investment class," a highfalutin sounding expression, the real meaning of which is, "wealthy people." Now, I'm not really against wealthy people per se, but I am against out and out, ruthless, exploitative greed. Greed that knows no bounds or decency towards the many others who also populate this country. The accumulation of wealth has been obscene and counterproductive to the country's stability, a problem I don't need to explain to an increasing number of Americans. They're hurting! 

In response to the concentration of wealth, we've seen conservatives tout tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, as if they need more money, while other parts of their "program" demand cuts to our most economically vulnerable citizens. They've counted on selfishness "trumping" (pun intended) shared responsibility, something that has often sadly proven to be true. While no one knows what Americans will think tomorrow, there are signs the tide "may" be turning. You can only squeeze a disconnected public so far before some people actually begin to feel the pain and they begin to reconnect to others in similar circumstances. As long as Americans pay attention, the conservatives will fail. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, big business and wealthy interests haven't been pouring money into political campaigns and turning common sense on its head so they can pay you more in wages and benefits. Nope, they want the opposite, but unfortunately many Americans have been complicit in their own economic decline by supporting the nonsense. Meanwhile the wealthiest of Americans have been gaining more and more of the economic pie for themselves.

We need watch dogs to keep tabs on business at every level. They're always trying to figure out new gimmicks to separate you from your money, which can then go into their bank accounts. Remember a year or so ago when some banks wanted to charge a fee for some accounts, but many Americans finally stood up and said, "No!" The banks backed down. We need a "Success, not Excess" type of campaign in the country. There has been no shared sacrifice by the upper incomes, but now we've got to make sure they share in sacrifices more than ever, since they've benefited so much in recent times. No more, "we'll raise prices, if we have to increase the minimum wage or provide health care." Let the executives and wealthy stockholders  pay first, not reap the benefits of low wages and benefits. That's the ONLY way to get this country back onto anywhere near an even keel. Call their hands, get in their faces every time they make a move to benefit themselves and not the rest of America. Tell them, "You've had your way and now YOU will pay." Tell lawmakers to quit this tax cut crap for the wealthiest of the wealthy.

Concentration of wealth and power have seen terrible consequences in times past. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia tried for too long to hold onto an outdated system of wealth, privilege and repression. After agreeing to mild "change" in 1905, Nicholas then tried to retract much of that minimal "change." When people then took matters into their own hands in 1917, it wasn't pretty. Nicholas was swept away and he and his entire family were eventually killed, as were others of the Russian nobility. Pay back can be absolute hell.

WORD HISTORY:
Not/Naught/Naughty/Nought-Modern "not" actually stems from a former compound. It goes back to Indo European "ne," which meant "no, not." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the same form, "ne," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ne/na," which then was coupled with "wiht," which meant "creature, being, thing,"^ to give Old English "nawiht," which meant, "nothing," which shortly thereafter  became "noht," and later, "naught" (nothing, zero), a variant spelling of which was "nought" ("zero"). The form "noht" later became "not." Besides meaning "nothing, zero," "naught" also took on the added meaning "not good, sinful, wrong," which then gave us "naughty." All of these various forms have relatives in the other Germanic languages: German has "nicht" (not) and "nichts" (nothing), but German dialects have several variants from the standard form, including: net, nich, nit; Low German has "nich" (not) and "nix" (nothing); Dutch has "niet" (not) and "niets" (nothing); West Frisian has "net" (not) and "neat" (nothing). Apparently the North Germanic languages (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic) do not use forms, although Icelandic has the related "né" (meaning "nor," as in "neither this nor that"). 
 
^ This is still around in modern English as "wight," although it certainly is little used in American English, but just because I've had to use it here, I'll do its history soon. Its German cousin is "Wicht." And by the way, it has nothing to do with the form used in the Isle of Wight.  

The Middle Class And The Poor Are Lousy At Class Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Just Blame Bush, It's The Philosophy

In spite of the opening of George W. Bush's presidential library and recent attempts by some of his supporters to put a positive spin on his presidency,* George W. Bush will likely go down in history as one of our worst presidents, "perhaps" THE worst. The American public can have a short memory, maybe even shorter in this era of "breaking news" and social media stories that can change the subject faster than Congress can pass legislation ...ah, okay, so that's a terrible comparison. Franklin D. Roosevelt has been widely seen as one of America's greatest presidents for decades, as he tried to combat the most severe economic downturn in the nation's history AND he led the country through all but the last months of World War Two. FDR was hated by the few, but he was revered by a large segment of the American public, which transcended party lines. The haters then were of the same type we have today; the greediest and most ruthless in American society, always looking out only for themselves and their immense egos, and hating anyone who dares to help others, but at least even THEY didn't have the nerve to call themselves "the job creators," as some of today's ruthless and greedy haters have done.

On the other hand, George W. Bush will always face historical criticism for the exact opposite reasons that secured Roosevelt's place in history. Bush chose to fight a war in Iraq that became immensely unpopular. The build-up to that war had the Bush administration indicating that Americans could be in grave peril from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was deemed to have "weapons of mass destruction," generally meaning biological and chemical weapons, and possibly an active nuclear program. The idea was put out that Hussein had been in contact with Al Qaeda and that he could provide them with these weapons. The invasion of Iraq and the fall of Hussein produced no such weapons nor any nuclear program, and when many of the captured Iraqi political and military leaders were interrogated, including Hussein himself, none indicated that such weapons had been available to them. Searches of buildings and the unearthing of possible sites proved fruitless. Bush and his administration then tried to change the focus of the war to the successful removal of Saddam Hussein and the chance to bring democracy to Iraq, but while the public shed no tears for Saddam, it also never really bought his removal, nor any attempts at establishing democracy in Iraq as truly valid reasons for the war. Insurrection by elements of the Iraqi population against foreign occupation and outright civil war between religious factions there had American and coalition troops caught in a horrible situation with mounting casualties. No one knows where Iraq is really heading a decade after Hussein fell. No amount of spin can change these facts, including the highly unlikely event, in my opinion, of Iraq becoming a model democracy in the volatile Middle East.

Throughout his presidency, Bush and his administration touted "free markets" as the solution to just about anything and everything economic. Free trade with low wage countries was pushed, with many thousands of American jobs sent overseas by those super patriotic bastions of greed and ruthlessness of American business, many of whom would sell their own mothers for the right price. If their mother is deceased, they'll sell her remains, casket and all. Regulation of business was downplayed, if not often dismantled. Market speculation in oil drove prices through the roof and helped to cripple the economy, which was then laid waste by unscrupulous bankers with highly complex securities backed by bad mortgages. The Bush administration and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan proved to be wrong about business being able to regulate itself, and the free market philosophy cost millions their jobs and their homes. A new Fed chairman and the prospect of the imminent collapse of the financial system had Bush reverse the free market nonsense to bailout the heavily indebted banks and provide some money to strapped auto companies. The crisis secured the election of Barack Obama who took the reins of the presidency with the economy in virtual free fall.

Democrats love to mention George W. Bush and watch Republicans blush, cringe or try to hide under their seats. Republicans, on the other hand, including the so called "Tea Party," have tried to act as if the world came into being on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took the oath of office. For a bunch who are always telling others to take personal responsibility, I don't believe I've ever heard them take responsibility for the failures of the philosophy they have touted so much, but which as produced so much misery. To me, what Bush did or didn't do is important, but not as important as the philosophy which led him, most Republicans, and so many misguided Americans down this road to economic destruction.

* Karen Hughes started working for Bush before he was elected governor in Texas and she is a close personal friend of the former president. She was on some of the news programs during the opening of the new library, and while I understand the friendship and loyalty, her recounting of the Bush presidency had to have been told with the fingers of both hands crossed behind her back. It was actually painful to watch and hear her tell how Bush will be so positively evaluated by history on the wars and on his overall administration. She also touted the Medicare drug benefit, a positive accomplishment of Bush's administration, but she failed to note that it wasn't paid for. Like Reagan's philosophy of "We'll cut taxes, especially for the upper incomes, increase military expenditures and give people popular programs, but we'll still balance the budget." As Bush's father said in 1980, that's voodoo economics, and that description certainly applied during his son's time in office. Reagan and George W. Bush both ran huge budget deficits, both such deficits then bequeathed to their respective successors.     

WORD HISTORY:
Rank-This is the noun form. This word appears to go back to Indo European "krengh," which meant "to turn or to bend." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "khrengaz," meaning "that which is curved, bent object." This gave Frankish, a Germanic dialect, "hring" ("ring"), which was then borrowed into Old French as "reng," which then became "ranc." At this time it took on the meaning "row, line," but exactly why this meaning developed is unclear. It came to be used in military terminology, with the notion of "row" coming to mean "in succession of authority;" thus, "rank." It was borrowed by English from French as "rank," apparently in the early 1500s or late 1400s. Close English relative German also borrowed the word as "Rang" ("rank") from the modern French version "rang."

The Super Wealthy and The Rest Of Us

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

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

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

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

GOP Fearful Of Government Success and Any Credit To Obama

For more than thirty years an anti-government philosophy has been escalating within the conservative movement in the United States. Conservatives were never all that taken with government in the first place, except to fight wars, but for about thirty-five years they've been perfecting their hatred. Fairly early on we heard then President Ronald Reagan declare something to the effect that government was not the solution to our problems, that government was the problem. A further little quip of Reagan's was that people were fearful to hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." As time went on, so did the anti-government rhetoric from conservatives. In the mid 1990s, the Republicans, by then virtually a conservative only party, took control of Congress and essentially declared war on  government. In a famous confrontation with President Clinton, the government was shut down, but the conservatives found their ardent philosophy lacking among much of the populace, as many Americans weren't as fearful of their government as Reagan's quip implied.* Conservatives lost that particular battle, but the war continued, and their ideas actually framed much of the debate.

Reagan gave huge tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy and increased military spending, and though Reagan had criticized his predecessor Jimmy Carter for deficits, Reagan's deficits made Carter's almost look like balanced budgets. Into office came George Bush Sr. to grapple with the financial mess bequeathed to the nation by Reagan and his philosophy. The staggering economy went into recession, only making the financial mess worse, but President Bush and Democrats in Congress worked out a compromise to bring deficits down as the economy healed. George Bush was followed by Bill Clinton, who reversed the role previously played by President Bush, as Democrat Clinton worked with Republicans in Congress to turn deficits into surpluses.**

Then came George W. Bush who sent Americans into action in two wars, but chose not to pay for those wars. He also pushed for and got a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, an admirable achievement, but he didn't pay for that either, with deficits accumulating into the trillions. When the economy went into meltdown mode in the waning months of Bush's presidency and into the early months of Barack Obama's first term, the deficits of Bush's two terms made many Americans a bit skittish about more deficit spending to combat the severe downturn, although economists and governments around the world called for just that. Republicans, who had "spent like drunken sailors," according to Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman turned cable TV host, now changed their tune once a Democrat was president, and they began a relentless campaign to advocate reductions in spending. They also denied any responsibility for the economic meltdown. Nope, not their fault: after all, the downturn and deficits all started on the day Barack Obama took office, January 20, 2009.*** After a major Republican victory in the 2010 midterm elections (they took control of the House of Representatives and cut the Democratic majority in the Senate), the shrillness of the cry for more spending reductions spiked to new highs. The economy, staggered by the massive fraud perpetrated by Wall Street bankers in the mortgage industry, was not about to take off, as the country then faced the Gulf oil spill, which shut down a large element of the economy in states along the Gulf of Mexico. Then a major earthquake struck Japan, halting that nation's ability to send needed auto parts to this country. All the while the drumbeat of the slow economy was trumpeted by Republicans, as they hoped for a takeover of the White House in 2012. Whether it was hope for Obama's defeat or fear of reprisals by right wing fanatics in their own party, or perhaps something of both, Republicans held ranks, with few Republican votes ever going to support any of Obama's proposals in Congress.

So now we hear how "government is broken." Let me tell you what I think. This is exactly what the right wing fascists want. They have told us for decades how government can't do anything and government is something to be feared. Funded by the likes of the Koch brothers and other right wingers, they have to make sure that government fails, for if government works to actually help Americans, conservatives may not see the White House for quite some time, and their big money supporters want tax cuts, as well as cuts to any and all government programs that actually help those who aren't wealthy. They don't have to like or agree much with President Obama and Democrats, but their blatant attempts to do anything to bring down his presidency is shameful to say the least, and is more like treason, in my opinion. Think about it folks. If Democrats had stood united against George W. Bush, the Republicans would have screamed how "unpatriotic" they were. It was no sheer coincidence when in Barack Obama's early days as president Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. This has been the strategy for decades of the fascists and right wingers who have become such a part of the GOP and some of them desperately want to bring down and humiliate the nation's first black president to satisfy their racist element. Right now, Republicans want to win elections more than they want to rid themselves of fascist and right wing nutcases.        

* Reagan was right about one thing, the money people ARE afraid of government, because it's the only thing that can rein them in, outside of a total revolution, in which case they would all lose their heads, literally. That's why so many wealthy people contribute to the war on government. They're afraid of it and they want to destroy it. These are SUPEREGOS. Are there foolish regulations? I'm sure there are, but without regulations the public would be exposed to anything and everything so that wealthy business people could make more money. Remember folks, like capitalism or not, it is not about anything except making money. It is NOT about your life, sending kids to school, taking care of the sick or injured, feeding the hungry, or anything else associated with being a decent human being. It is about MONEY and only about MONEY! Like the trickle down nonsense spouted by conservatives, unrestrained capitalism might let a few crumbs fall off the table, but its fundamental principles can be ruthless endeavors to make money.

**  The budget surpluses looked larger than they actually were, because of Social Security being included in the overall federal budget numbers. Understand, that also means the budget deficits of previous years were really worse than most Americans realized, because of the inclusion of Social Security. What do I mean? Well, during that general era, Social Security was taking in more money than it paid out annually, thus, when added to the overall federal budget, it made surpluses look larger in the late 1990s, just as it had made federal deficits look smaller prior to that time.

*** The other day, I saw a post online by an obvious Republican woman who claimed, "Obama has started all of these wars, but refuses to give our troops the weapons they need." To be fair, Democrats have some folks who say similar way out things, but it just shows how people can ignore events they've actually lived through and reconstruct those events to fit into what they want to believe. In the early part of 2009 just after the passage of the stimulus bill, an acquaintance of mine, a Democrat turned Republican because Obama is black, told me he had been listening to one of the right wing radio shows (I just forget which one). He asked me, "Randy, what are we going to do about all of this inflation Obama is causing with this stimulus money? It's only going to get worse according to the guy on the radio." Folks, at that point in time, prices on many things were FALLING, not rising, and the threat of DEFLATION, not inflation, was the concern of many economists. Right wing and fascist propagandists count on people relying on the lies, I mean, "information" they provide. They can convince their "flock" that day is night and night is day. Don't be fooled! There needs to be a "truth squad" to relentlessly pursue these lying bastards! It's no coincidence the Nazis burned books, for knowledge is the enemy of these types. In my opinion, Republicans have been in a flight from reality for decades, as they wanted so much to believe that Reagan's economic policies would benefit the country, they couldn't face the reality that his policies were exactly the "voodoo economics" they were tagged with by George Bush Sr.   

WORD HISTORY:
Shall-This word "seems' to go back to Indo European "skel,' which had the notion of "be obliged to do something, owe." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skulan," which meant "to owe, be obligated;" thus also, "have guilt;" that is, "owe a debt for an illegal act." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sellan/sculan" (the "sc" pronounced like "sh"), with many of the same meanings. The notion of "ought to, be obliged to," eventually gave "shall" a future tense use, now in modern English often replaced by "will" ("I shall go," but more likely today, "I will go."). The other Germanic languages have: German "sollen," Low German Saxon "schölen," Dutch "zullen," Icelandic "skal/skulu," Danish and Norwegian "skal," and Swedish "skall." I could not find a form in modern Frisian, but I believe, like modern English, they use a form of "will" to express future actions.

Reform Entitlements For Those 'Moochers,' The Rich, Part 3/Final

As income disparity has risen over the decades, the wealthiest among us, never content to be, well, "the wealthiest among us," have had an element seemingly demanding even larger amounts for themselves, including in tax breaks or government subsidies. In a paraphrasing of multi billionaire Warren Buffett's fairly recent comments, the rich have been coddled. The more they have been coddled, the more they want to be coddled. Interestingly, many conservatives have argued that poor and middle class people become addicted to government programs. The more government programs, the more they'll want even more government programs. The conservative "theory" has been, "cut off the government programs and force them to have to work, or work more." If you believe there is truth to this "theory," then you should too accept that there is truth in the above comment about the rich. After all, what we're really talking about here is human nature; you know, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile," or "give 'em a penny and they'll want a dollar," or "give 'em one of your Twinkies and they'll ask for the other one too." Of course there was that one person who became famous when he wouldn't give up his eats to anybody and shouted, "Let go o' my Eggo."

Rising profits and income for the wealthy have driven some in that select income bracket to want more. They ship jobs overseas to cheap labor countries, why? Because they can't pay their light bill? Nope, because they want .... "more money!" Then they can sit and fret over their stock prices that only rose 5 points last week* and say, "If I cut payroll even more, I'll make ..... "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!" Naturally many of these folks are, or have been, corporate officers, especially Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). They have seen huge increases in compensation over the last decades. There are lots of numbers bandied about on CEO pay versus pay for others, but generally, about 35 years ago CEOs at the nation's top corporate headquarters earned something like 40 to 45 times what the average worker earned. I think most Americans would say that's a pretty good rate. Well today, they earn something like 350 times the amount of the average worker. The whole upper part of the American economic system is controlled by pretty much the same small group of people who sit on various boards to "govern" (cough, cough) the nation's biggest corporations; these select few out of a population of more than 300 million. Again, figures vary depending upon source, but generally, AT LEAST 80% (again, some say more than that) of all stocks and bonds are owned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans. Perhaps even more disturbing, and I'm already very disturbed (should I reword that?), the 400 Americans at the top of the income pyramid earn more than HALF of ALL Americans combined. Then there's this absolute nonsense that these super wealthy people have to "plan for retirement," as if they're really on the same level with the rest of Americans. What a bunch of stuff that comes out of a bull's behind!       

So we've had some conservatives complaining about so called "Obama phones," a public relations success for them, at least at the moment, unless Americans find out the telephone program really started under that bedrock of liberalism ..... RONALD REAGAN! Some conservative politicos tried to convince Americans that Obama would give you a phone, "IF" you would vote for him. It was a double whammy; a give away to a bunch of moochers AND a vote buying scheme, all rolled up into one. From what I understand, Rush Limbaugh was on the verge of a stroke over the free phones, undoubtedly worried that any self-respecting fascist would have a tough time overcoming the odds of beating free phones. Hm, maybe the conservatives have something here..... Reagan won 49 states in his reelection, so maybe free phones do work! Or..... maybe it was the free "Reagan cheese." For those of you too young to know, President Reagan started a large effort to give free 5lb blocks of cheese to Americans. Of course, with Reagan, it was "American cheese," not any of this "Swiss" stuff or "queso blanco" from him, no sirree! It was "red, white and blue," or maybe that was just the color of the mold on it? The program covered people on Social Security or on food stamp assistance, but the cheese was a frequent item for sale on street corners, and I don't mean from licensed vendors. It was surplus cheese bought by the government, often used to feed military personnel, as I recall. Further, I believe free butter was given away, at least for a time, although not on the same scale as the cheese, but Reagan, who increased the defense budget tremendously, could properly claim that he provided both "guns AND butter" to Americans, besides huge budget deficits.    

So the idea supported by some conservatives that the wealthy need the enticements of millions and millions of bucks to spur them on is either nonsense, or a symptom of people who have become so spoiled, they think just a few paltry millions of dollars aren't worth the effort to obtain; it must gazillions. If you invented something and were offered, say a million bucks, would you then say, "Well, I'm never going to invent anything again for THAT kind of money!" The whole psychology has been turned on its head, if you'll pardon the expression (psychology...turned on its head, get it?). I guess only poor people and those "unrich," as I term it, are "moochers," since the wealthiest Americans "deserve" any tax cuts and subsides; after all, they have been dubbed, "the job creators," by conservatives. But I like the other term for them anyway. I want entitlement reform, dammit! Those spoiled moochers, the rich, are just bleeding the country dry. If this keeps going, I won't even be able to get a free "Reagan phone."

* Remember folks, if you own a few shares of stock, the chance of you getting truly rich from that stock is not terribly high, BUT if you own stocks (plural) like the wealthy own stocks (plural), in the millions of shares, an uptick of a few points in one or more can mean a huge increase in their already substantial wealth.
   
WORD HISTORY:
Strew-This word goes back to Indo European "struh/streh," which had the notion of "spread out, scatter," as it was a derivative of Indo European "stereh," which meant, "to spread, to stretch out." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "straujanan," with the same meaning. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "strewian," which meant "to scatter, to strew." This then became "strewen," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German "streuen," Low German Saxon "straien," Dutch "strooien," Norwegian and Danish "strø," Swedish "strö." These all mean "strew, scatter," and in some cases, "sprinkle." You can probably guess what German "Salzstreuer" means ... "salt shaker," literally "salt strewer." I could not find a form in either West Frisian or Icelandic, but both have forms of "straw," which by the way,  is closely related to "strew." I covered "straw" in this article (actually close to this series on entitlements): http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/09/yikes-were-already-socialists.html

Will Responsible Republicans Admit Mistake?

This was first published in February 2013, but as the forces of greed are already running ads to "reform" the tax code, it is very appropriate, since to them, "tax reform" means, "give us tax cuts, don't you know how tough it is to get by on a few billion? Life is tough."

In the late 1930s, film producer/director Frank Capra, who was born in Sicily, but came to the United States as a child, did a picture called "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington." Americans need to sit down and watch this picture again, and again, to remind us of what this country has tried to stand for in its relatively short lifespan, compared to the rest of the world. We aren't perfect, maybe we've been far from it, but we haven't let our imperfections stymie our desires to correct flaws, or to file down our rough edges. Even in the last thirty plus years of conservative influence, the country has at times chosen to go in the opposite direction of those who would keep us divided and keep us from moving forward. But this age, which began with "so called conservatism,"* has not "pro"gressed, but "re"gressed to the point where the wealthy and large business interests have come to dominate; never satisfied to make millions, but rather to pile millions upon millions, upon millions, upon billions, with many showing not the slightest concern for their fellow, far less well off, citizens, and by demanding tax cuts and taxpayer money as an "entitlement" for their being rich and powerful. Whether this "era of nonsense, sold as sense," is coming to an end remains to be seen, as the ruthless interests still have many cards up their sleeves, cards with lots of $$$ signs, and they won't hesitate for one moment to play those cards.

For those who have seen "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and may have forgotten the gist of the picture, and for those who've never seen the film, Capra put together a story of a young idealistic average citizen, "Jeff Smith," who is tapped to replace a senator who has just died. The young man, played by James "Jimmy" Stewart, is so overwhelmed by his choice to serve his country and to help others, he is unaware of really WHY he was chosen. A wealthy and powerful businessman in his state, played by Edward Arnold, has gotten a seemingly benign clause about a land deal inserted into an important relief bill before the Senate. The land will prove to bring in a bundle for the greedy businessman, and the feeling is, Smith will never notice what is going on. The actual bill is important to the nation, with the potential to provide help to millions of Americans (this was in the Depression era), but so much for patriotism, money is the ONLY important thing to the ruthless businessman and his bought and paid for cronies. Claude Rains plays the state's senior senator, a well respected and progressive man, but who has come under the thumb of the ruthless businessman. The new Senator Smith takes the floor to offer his first bill for a boys' camp. Little does he know, the proposed camp is right smack dab on the land included in the businessman's deal. The reaction is swift and ruthless, as the businessman and his cronies try to stymie the young senator, who finds out just what has been going on. Efforts to discredit the senator and to make him a laughing stock appear to work, until the young man, abandoned by much of the Senate, but supported by his aide, played by Jean Arthur (whom he loves), decides to take to the floor himself in an effort to get the attention of his home state and of the nation. He holds the floor for hours and some senators start to wonder whether such a determined man would stage such a grueling effort without having some truth to his claims.

Little does the young senator know, in his home state, the ruthless businessman has closed off contact with Washington and has gotten the newspapers and radio stations he owns (and those under his thumb) to condemn the young senator. A youth organization tries to spread the truth to help Senator Smith by delivering leaflets to the people, but the businessman's thugs overturn their wagons and bicycles and destroy the leaflets, injuring some of the kids. Further, the businessman has his cronies send thousands of telegrams to the Capitol Building telling the senator to stop and let the bill be passed by the Senate. The young man becomes despondent, but then bounces back and lectures the other senator from his state on how he once had been an idealist who fought for what was good for America, not what was good for wealthy interests. Totally worn out, the young senator collapses. The senior senator rushes to the back offices and tries to shoot himself, but is stopped by others. He dashes to the floor of the Senate screaming that the young senator has been telling the truth and that he himself has been corrupt as Senator Smith had said all along. In the end, he takes responsibility in an effort to correct a terrible wrong.

My question is, which Republicans nowadays will now stand up and admit to their terrible mistakes of letting a bunch of nutcases and fascists take over a segment of their party? Just like with the wealthy, ruthless businessman in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," once you let these kinds of people in and they get a foothold, getting them out is painful and dangerous. You may lose some elections if you root out these nutcases and fascists, but it may make you stronger in the future. I'm not saying you should totally agree with Democrats, hell, Democrats don't always agree with one another, and we need competing ideas, but this nonsense of opposing just about EVERYTHING just to oppose, or often to help wealthy interests, it's not acceptable and I believe many Republicans see this too, but they may be afraid to speak out, as the roughneck thugs you have let in to your party are a threat to them, but also to the nation. Capra's movie was about American patriotism and ideals. Not patriotism manufactured to keep a political ideology in power, but a patriotism that came with the founding of this nation, one of inclusion, not exclusion, although we've struggled with that idea from the very beginning, but no one can say we haven't tried to right many a wrong, a struggle we continue with to this very day. Republicans were once the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, and in Capra's film, the young senator goes to the Lincoln Memorial to renew and steady his belief in the ideals of America. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt had ideals that were based upon the patriotism that came with the founding of this country. It's time Republicans once again found that same patriotism. Stand up and be counted!   

* I say "so called conservatism," because any philosophy which renounces deficits and deficit spending, only to use "deficits and deficit spending" as policy, is anything but conservative. No, this was the beginning of an outright "reactionary" period, using "liberal" economic policies, combined with an ever increasing appeal to patriotism, to remain in power, and all the while sapping the strength of the nation's middle class and poor in a gigantic transfer of wealth to already wealthy interests.
   
WORD HISTORY:
Responsible-The ancient origins of this compound word are uncertain, so I am going to go backward in this history. English borrowed the word from French "responsible" in the latter part of the 1500s, which had been derived from Latin "responsus," the participle form of "respondere," which meant "to respond, to answer to." This came from the Latin prefix "re," a common form in Latin derived words, usually with some context of "go back, return, repeat," but why Latin, an Italic language, has this prefix is unclear. The second part is from Latin "spondere," which was derived from Latin "spondeo," which meant "to promise or to pledge, to assume responsibility for." The trail after this is more than a little murky. 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Five

I'm going to backtrack here in the first part of this article, as I feel I should explain a bit more about the political nature of the country in the post-Civil War era, largely during what is known as Reconstruction and thereafter. It was an important era that brought political alignments (coalitions) for decades.

In the last couple of decades our political system has become increasingly polarized, and we "may" have to look back to the Civil War era to find a time when Americans were so politically divided over such an extended period of time and over so many issues. Some Republicans have even mentioned "secession from the United States," not that I believe that anything  is imminent. The Civil War era division largely centered around slavery and federal power to bring it to an end; a concept opposed by many southern states, whose representatives argued that states had a right to do what they wanted. Of course, the major beneficiaries of slavery were wealthy interests, usually plantation owners and exporters,* who were able to make the "states' rights" issue appear to be at the heart of the matter, not the immorality of slavery. By promoting the idea of a bullying Federal government, which was attacking southern independence, the interests were able to rally a "southern nationalism" to help them keep slavery in place. Poor white farmers and town dwellers, essentially receiving little, if any, benefit from slavery, became its staunch advocates, as they saw attempts to end it as an attack on "the South." If some of this sounds similar to today, you are wide awake.

The defeat of the Confederacy brought occupation to the South by troops of the Federal government. Each former Confederate state had to agree to certain laws before they could be readmitted to the Union, mainly those guaranteeing rights to former slaves. Republicans, the big political winners from the Civil War, as the party had been formed largely as an anti-slavery party, gained political control of most southern states by forming a coalition of blacks, northern white Republican transplants, and "repentant" white southerners.** Former slaves made up a substantial percentage of each southern state's population, but remember, at that time, only men could vote, not women, and blacks were virtually 100% Republican, as it was Lincoln and Republicans who helped them gain their freedom. Many southern white Democrats were elected to local offices, and thus began a period of intimidation of blacks and gimmicks (like poll taxes) to keep blacks from voting. Gradually, white Democrats began to regain control of southern states. In an agreement reached in 1877 over the disputed election of 1876, where Republican Rutherford B. Hayes trailed Democrat Samuel Tilden by more than two percentage points in the popular vote, Hayes won the Electoral College by just one vote, but the agreement provided for the withdrawal of troops from the South, and the ascension of Democrats to power there until the latter part of the 20th Century. Cracks began to develop much earlier in the Democratic coalition, however, over race.

Progressive elements within the Democratic Party,*** with support from none other than Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of President Franklin Roosevelt, wanted black Americans to enjoy the same rights as other Americans, something that was not a fact in those times, even in the north, although the black population was still overwhelmingly concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy. Segregation was the fact, with separate seats for whites and blacks in theaters, restaurants, buses, etc, and separate schools and even separate water fountains. The movement for equal civil rights brought discord among Democrats, as southern whites, although staunchly Democratic, began to voice opposition to such rights for black Americans. At times, some southern politicians like Strom Thurmond, ceased their affiliation with the Democratic Party, at least temporarily, forming the so called "Dixiecrats," with the main aim being the perpetuation of segregation, although as like nearly a hundred years before, under the guise of supporting "states' rights." **** As more black Americans began to move northward to find jobs in northern industrial cites, conflict developed with the indigenous white population, much of it working class.***** The Democratic Party was finding their political coalition being strained, but fear of Republican pro wealthy policies (a carry over from Depression times) kept most Democrats scared enough to keep them in the fold election by election. When President Lyndon Johnson pushed for, and got, civil rights legislation in the mid 1960s, Republican political strategists found a potential opening to bring their stagnant party to possible majority status.******

The 1960s, more specifically the mid to late 1960s and into the early 1970s, were highly tumultuous. The war in Vietnam grew increasingly unpopular and divisive, with bloody protests and riots, at the same time as the civil rights movement for black Americans brought bloody protests and riots. The war brought antiwar people into activist positions within the Democratic Party (a group which also tended to be highly supportive of civil rights). Republicans won a close election for President in 1968 with former Vice President Richard Nixon. Republicans and conservative southern Democrats had been "flirting" for a number of years, but Nixon's appeal to patriotism and "law and order" (code for breaking up riots by antiwar protesters and civil rights groups; that is blacks) brought him a major victory in the election of 1972. Republican momentum to take control of Congress in 1974 or 1976 was derailed by the Nixon administration scandals, sort of collectively called "Watergate." Democrats won big in the 1974 congressional elections, and captured the presidency in 1976, but their era was out of gas, almost literally (oil and gasoline shortages). As the Democratic coalition unraveled, the Republicans were about to build one of their own.     

* The South was highly agricultural in those times, and heavily dependent upon cotton, of which much was sold outside the South, and overseas.  

** I've used the term "repentant southerners," for lack of a better term, but these were southern whites who essentially agreed with meeting the required conditions to rejoin the Union. "Unrepentant southerners" called these folks "scallywags" and they called the white northern transplants "carpetbaggers," after the travel bags they carried, fashioned out of carpet-like material, a fairly common  practice in those times.

*** Many progressives in the Republican Party began to switch to the Democratic Party in the 1930s and thereafter, but the progressive wing of the Republican Party remained fairly strong until 1964 and the nomination by Republicans of highly conservative/libertarian Barry Goldwater. After that, it was pretty much only a matter of time before progressive/liberal Republicans became an endangered species within the GOP.

**** It is worth noting that Thurmond later became a Republican and served in the U.S. Senate until the age of 100. It also is important to note that Thurmond, the staunch segregationist, fathered a child (a daughter) by a black woman. Hmm, I guess he didn't believe in segregation as far as sex was concerned.

***** As I've joked with black friends over the years, "Northerners opposed slavery, but we didn't think you were going to come up here and live next door to us." I'm not naive, and I'm sure someone will take this out of context, but I use it to point out that there were many racists in the North.

****** The 1964 election saw conservative Republican Barry Goldwater carry several southern states in a losing effort against Lyndon Johnson, an indication of how strong racial tempers were flaring in the Old South.

WORD HISTORY:
Slave-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but it goes back to Old Slavic "slovo," the underlying meaning of which had to do with "sounds, utterances;" thus "speech." This then produced "sloveninu," meaning "Slav/Slovene," from the notion "group of people of the same or similar speech/language." This was borrowed by Greek as "Sklabos" ("Slav"), which in turn was borrowed by Latin as "Sclavus," but with the meaning "slave," as many Slavic people had by that time been conquered and enslaved by others. This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "(e)sclave," and this was borrowed as "slave" by English in the latter part of the 1200s.   

The Right Gets Its Man: Paul Ryan

This was first published in August 2012


The American right wing now has its man, Paul Ryan, as the number two pick on the GOP ticket. Since the economic collapse of the Great Depression and the resultant relatively mild attempts to rein in certain business practices, and the attempts by government to provide basic protections for America's elderly, sick, disadvantaged and poor, the political right has fumed at how to return things to a society totally committed to greed and survival of the fittest. Little by little over the decades they have succeeded in getting laws changed and programs modified to accomplish their goals, at times with complicity from some Democrats. Shame! Shame! One of the major bugaboos of the right has been Social Security since its inception in the 1930s. Why well to do people are so obsessed with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is beyond me. I understand the desire of many Americans, including some of the very wealthy, to keep these programs solvent, but there has been a desire by the hard right wing in this country to destroy these programs, then giving themselves control over a vast new source of income, as if they didn't have enough money already. Don't be fooled by the right wing propaganda that without their proposals being enacted, these programs will go under. Let me tell you, if these programs ever go under, we won't have a country anymore. The idea of privatization and insurance vouchers should scare the absolute hell out of you, no matter your political affiliation. Some members of the GOP are finally bailing out, like one of our local more moderate Republicans, Cleveland area Congressman Steve LaTourette. Understand, these programs are not perfect and they will require adjustments, but whom do you want in charge of the surgery, Doctor Kildare or Jack the Ripper? Remember folks, the wealthiest Americans are NOT hurting. Many are making more money than EVER, and in an economy that is growing moderately, at best. They are working and spending huge sums to convince YOU to effectively dismantle programs that can help YOU at some point in YOUR life. Don't let them get away with it!
 
Now one Paul Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin, has been picked by Mitt Romney as his running mate. Polls show many Americans, perhaps you're one of them, don't know who Ryan is, but let me tell you something, they're about to find out; hopefully not the hard way; that is, if these two win the election. Democrats need to spell out what Ryan stands for, plain and simple, no exaggerations or falsehoods. Just tell it like it is. The man has a long record in Congress and in speaking engagements and interviews, and his budget ideas are well known to people who follow politics to any degree.Political parties and philosophies tend to eventually go too far, and the political right, financed by wealthy interests, is at that point in my opinion, having dodged a bullet with the severe economic downturn coming so late in George W. Bush's term. They were then able to shift the focus of a part of the country away from themselves, and onto the new President, Barack Obama, who provided them with a new angle of attack, RACE! Criticizing Obama does NOT automatically make a person a racist or bigot, but it gave the right a floor of political support at a time when their own money grubbing itself was under attack. I personally know a couple of people who were Democrats, but who voted Republican for the sole reason (by their own admission) that Obama was a man of color. The charges against Obama of "socialism" are almost comical, coming from a bunch that bet on mortgage-backed securities. Why? Because they wanted the profits for themselves, but when the thing blew up, the losses then became something to be shared by EVERYONE; "government help;" that is, the very "socialism" they claim to detest.* "Too big to fail" became the new slogan to garner support.

I've noted here before, "if" the climate ever dramatically changes and Americans turn on these greediest of the greedy, it will not be pretty. Reason and common sense go out the window in such circumstances. The potential irony is, the wealthy interests have used "globalization" to extract more wealth for themselves, but unlike years ago, they will have nowhere to hide. Popular movements have sprung up all over the world in support of a fairer society in their respective countries, and in reaction to their own monied interests. Once events shift, where will the wealthy be able to run for protection? China? That would be THE ultimate irony, but China is not exempt from popular movements either, as events since the late 1980s have shown, and my guess is, there is a seething volcano of popular discontent in China. Still, what an irony! The wealthy right wing running to Communist China! Hm, I'll bet Romney would say he's been for Obamacare all along, and that it's real name is "Romneycare."

* This is "socialism" in the sense that everyone (taxpayers) would pitch in to help save their rotten asses.  

WORD HISTORY:
Rise-The origins of this word are uncertain, but Old Germanic had "risanan," which meant "to go up, to stand up." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "risan," meaning "to rise, to stand up." This then became "risen" (long "i" sound), before the modern form. The noun form, most common in the topographical "elevated terrain," developed from the verb. The Old Germanic notion of "stand up" gave many of the modern Germanic languages the meaning "travel," from the idea of "rising from sleep to make a journey." German has "reisen" (to travel), Low German Saxon "raisen" (to travel), Dutch has both "rijzen" (to rise, to climb) and "reizen" (to travel), West Frisian has "reizgje," East Frisian "risa" (rise, arise), Swedish "resa" (to travel), Norwegian "reise" (to travel), Danish "rejse" (to travel) and Icelandic "risa" (to rise, arise).

Our Contentious System, Part Two/B

So what about the rest of us in the economic system? Well, human beings seek a better life, the definition of which can't even be given by Webster's Dictionary, as we each have our own definition.We're all trying to get something from someone, but the system isn't especially nasty between most of us. When you want a loaf of bread you head to the nearest store, get a loaf, pay the cashier and go home. Prior to that, the store paid to have the bread delivered by some bakery, which bought ingredients from suppliers and paid workers to mix, bake, load and deliver the bread, and the whole process continues back to flour mills, where the wheat was ground into flour, and then back to farmers and farm workers who harvested the wheat, which they had planted and tended, etc. This system of exchange has worked pretty well for thousands of years, although some of the details change at times, as with barter, common long ago, but which still goes on today.

Unions have a job to defend worker rights and bargain for better wages and benefits. Because unions help to set labor standards, even non union workers benefit. The playing field, however, is not anywhere near level now. Remember, this is a contentious system, not perfect, just like the legal system covered in "Part One" isn't perfect, but with all sides permitted to have their say for their own self interest, but the wealthy interests have far more advantage than the rest of us. The plotters and schemers worked to get so called "free trade," where they could then circumvent American labor unions and put pressure on wages and benefits. Why? Because they were hurting and needed money? Nope, because they wanted mo' money, mo' money, mo' money! The cuts in wages and benefits for many workers in this system have led to the "downward spiral," as given a choice between an American product that costs more, due to the better pay and benefits of American workers, and a cheaper foreign-made product, many Americans, no matter how much they may want to buy American, have to choose the cheaper product because their budgets are so tight, and this keeps the spiral moving downwards, and you know what is at the bottom of the downward spiral in your sink....the DRAIN! Do the CEOs and wealthy investors take less, too? Hell no! They are making record profits and they're making those profits on YOUR misery. So don't be angry with poorer folks about this, they have to try to survive, and the interests are USING IT. Until the whole situation changes, there will continue to be pressure on wages and benefits, although some articles and news reports seem to suggest American companies are slowly bringing jobs, even plants, back to America, due to escalating costs and political uncertainty abroad. We'll have to see how this plays out. Right now, the hardball game is being played on the turf of the wealthy interests, and there are no more ruthless people on Mother Earth than some of these people. With them EVERYTHING is about money and they devote their lives to this one thing and this one thing only. It's tough to keep up with their schemes, because other people actually try to enjoy life, even in little ways, including poor people who may not have many options for enjoyment.

Next, at some point in the near future..."Our Contentious Political System" 

WORD HISTORY:
Thorp-This word is now archaic, but it is seen in names^ and place names, especially in England. It goes back to Indo European "treb," which meant "dwelling," and perhaps a more basic, "place of shelter." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "thurpan," where the vowel and "r" sounds have swapped places.^^ Its meaning in Germanic broadened into "group of living places; hence, 'village,' " but also the notion of a collection of dwellings produced the meaning "group of people, gathering," and even "land where people dwell." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "thorp," which generally meant "village, farming community or estate." Once English borrowed the word "village," the use of "thorp" lessened. While little used in every day English, its Germanic relatives still survive, some in VERY common usage: (unless noted, they all mean "village") German has "Dorf,"^^^ Low German Saxon has "Dorp," Dutch has "dorp," West Frisian has "doarp," North Frisian and Danish have "torp," Swedish also has "torp," but it means "farmhouse, cottage," which takes it back closer to the original meaning, Icelandic has "thorp," which means "village," but also  "farm." Norwegian has "torp," but apparently, like its English relative, it is archaic. 

^ Famous American athlete "Jim Thorpe" is one. Thorpe was of mixed Native American and European ancestry, but his father's paternal side was Irish. 

^^ Sounds changing places is not especially unusual, as it is thought that "bird" originally came from "brid," and "ask" was once "akse" or "axe."

^^^ One of the sound shifts in some West Germanic dialects (English is West Germanic) which produced "High German," changed "p" to "f" or "pf;" thus Low German "Dorp" became High German "Dorf," and Low German "Piep" (English "pipe) became High German "Pfeife" ('ei'=long 'i' sound).  

Our Contentious System, Part Two/A

Our economic system is highly contentious, and some want, and frankly we've been heading toward, what is commonly called a "dog-eat-dog" system with few if any rules, where some people get an advantage and exploit that advantage to the fullest for personal gain, no matter who gets hurt in the process. If someone would give them money for their mother, they would sell her in a heartbeat; after all, "she only raised me, but what has she done for me lately?" The people who are more than likely to want this kind of system, dating back to the beginnings of mankind, are more than likely well off, with a bunch of psychological problems needing psychiatric attention as soon as possible, before they either destroy everyone, or we turn and destroy them in self defense. They have superegos that need a constant "fix," just like a drug user. The only things is, in modern America, we lock drug users up, but we let the egomaniacs run wild, destroying our lives, our country and perhaps the world, and some folks even want to reward these egomaniac misfits with tax breaks and tax cuts!

The country and parts of the world have allowed the egomaniacs/super rich to rise to a point of power that is now difficult to roll back. The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed them to use their virtually unlimited resources to keep them in control, no matter who is president, or which party is in control of Congress, although they hope for the far more compliant Republicans, most of whom seem more than willing to do their bidding. These superegos are so spoiled, they now see what was once moderation as being "socialist" or even "communist," but they need that "fix." As I've said here many times before, most Americans want businesses to succeed, but we want "success, not excess," and we've seen lots and lots of excess in more recent times. Since the continued rise of the superegos and super rich, the country has been in decline, which is the opposite of what they tell us, "Give us tax cuts, less regulation and everything will by okay." Nonsense! This has been going on for over three decades, we're worse off, by far. Occupy Wall Street and unions have brought the inequality issue front and center, although it has currently lost some steam. If the system continues to allow income to flow from everyone else to the top, only bloodshed will change things.  They are not going to give up power quietly. Look at how they're trying to destroy Obama, and he's basically supportive of the system. You must toe the line in giving them a total free hand, or else. Unions, Occupy Wall Street, and others are trying to get other Americans to pay attention, but I'm afraid until these other Americans too fall under the yoke of the superegos, they may not listen, and it will definitely be too late then. The worst thing is to think nothing can be done about the situation. Remember the five dollar a month bank fee by Bank of America that was stopped a few months ago by common action by everyday citizens? Undoubtedly some, like sheep going to the slaughter, were willing to pay and accept their fate. WE can make a difference. It is a contentious system, BE CONTENTIOUS. Trust me, the big boys are NOT worried about YOU and they are more than willing to be contentious.

We had some fairly tough regulation put into effect by President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, and by his distant cousin, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat. I just looked out the window and Mother Earth was still there, and history shows that the rich were still the rich and prosperity was much more widespread, helped along by the regulations of the above presidents and others. One thing has changed in the last few decades, the rich are MUCH richer, and the country is in decline. The emergency bell is ringing folks!     

More in "Part Two/B"

WORD HISTORY:
Hold-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but many believe it to be from Indo European. Old Germanic had "haldanan," which meant "to grasp, to keep." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "healdan," with the same basic meaning, but with the added "keep watch over," a meaning which then went to the closely related "behold" (see note below ^). This then became "holden," before the modern form. The noun form developed from the verb with the meaning "grip/grasp" ("get a good hold on the desk before you lift it"), and also "fort," now more common in the compound "stronghold." The noun form used for storage in planes or ships, as in "ship's hold," is not from the same word, in spite of the similar meaning, but rather it is closely related to "hole." Common in the other Germanic languages; these are verbal forms: German has "halten," Low German has "hoolden," Dutch has "houden" (not an error, there is no "l"), West Frisian has "hâlde,"  Danish has "holde," Norwegian has "halda/holde" (depending upon dialect), Icelandic has "halda," and Swedish has "hålla" (no error here either, there is no "d").

^ For the history of the related "behold," see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/06/english-its-closest-relatives-part-two.html  

Help Limit The Power Of The Rich & Powerful-VOTE!

Those old enough should remember Ross Perot's remark about the trade legislation of the early and mid 1990s, that it would cause a "large sucking sound" of American jobs being sent elsewhere.* Actually the "sucking sound" has been around for decades now, but we just didn't realize what it was, or maybe we just didn't want to know what it was. It has been the sound of money and wealth being sucked out of the wallets, pocketbooks, bank accounts, and home values of just about everyone living on the under side of a million bucks, give or take a few hundred thousand. A TREMENDOUS transfer of wealth has been taking place. Don't look the other way anymore folks, because this is serious. Reality can be tough to face, but if you supported, or "turned a blind eye to" the policies of the past three plus decades, don't be ashamed to admit your mistake. It is NOT too late, but action must come soon.

We barely escaped a total worldwide economic meltdown comparable to the Great Depression, and probably worse, just a few years ago. Why? Many people worldwide took time to forget all of the scare tactics used "to keep them in line" for the conservative; that is, wealthy interests' cause. Money was pumped into the world economy to avert an even more serious downturn, and an even "Greater Depression" instead became the "Great Recession." We are NOT out of the woods! The world economy is still hanging by a thread, and the rightwing elitists around the world have counterattacked by declaring "austerity" is the only way out; of course, "austerity" means YOU have to give up money or wealth and tighten your belt, not the wealthiest among us. Quite the contrary, we are still being fed the nonsense that "we" need to give tax cuts to wealthy people, because they are "the job creators." With all of the tax cuts given the rich over the past thirty plus years, we should be advertising on Mars for "help wanted," as there should be a labor shortage here on Earth. Conservatives keep telling us we have to give tax cuts to rich folks, or we're going to go to hell in a hand basket. Not only that, but we should further remove regulations on the Interests so they'll give us jobs. It is time for us to take matters into OUR hands, not leave things in the hands of the greediest of the greedy. We DO have potential power, but we're not united in the cause to have some control over our own lives. Giving more money to the wealthy is not going to solve our problems. For a variety of reasons, including OUR own mistakes,** we have UNDER consumption, not OVER consumption of goods and services.*** If you own a small business, this should very much concern you. You need customers! There's a major limit to how many products and services the wealthy can buy from you. Remember folks, we're all in this together. I've been in business myself, so I'm NOT anti-business. Don't be fooled by this "If you don't support tax cuts for the rich, and the repeal of every regulation in sight, you're anti-business." That's absolute NONSENSE!

If you are not registered to vote, or if you are registered, but haven't updated your address or other information with your voter registration officials (usually done by counties), please do so NOW! DON'T WAIT! Also, find out IN DETAIL (and I'd suggest, IN WRITING) what you need to be able to vote when you go to the polls (photo ID or whatever), or to vote absentee (now often done by mail). Don't think because you did this or that in the last election that things are necessarily the same. Some states have changed their laws. Don't risk being turned away from the polls, or having your ballot being challenged, and perhaps not counted, by not complying with the existing laws. Not liking the law changes is not an excuse! Like it, not like it, Republicans have tried to restrict voting under the guise of trying to keep non citizens from voting. I don't want non citizens to vote either, but I don't want eligible voters to be deprived of their basic rights over technicalities. Also, DON'T BE DISCOURAGED by any registration or voting law changes in your state. That's what they're hoping for! They DON'T want YOU to vote! The fewer average and poor people who vote, the bigger the impact of those in the upper incomes and their misguided allies. Don't cede your voice to others by not voting!

* Ross Perot became a billionaire at a time of more overall regulation of the American economy and when income distribution was far less concentrated. Hm, wonder how he did it?

** Remember too, purist capitalists and free marketers have shunned any responsibility for the economic mess. They have chosen to rewrite the Old Testament as "In the beginning, January 20, 2009, God created the heavens and the Earth." Don't be like these money-grubbing, irresponsible superegos. We all have made mistakes, and we need to acknowledge that.

*** I am working on another related article that will deal with the question of whether purist capitalism can provide broad-based prosperity for a considerable length of time, without war(s). To be clear, communism failed! So what about its counterpart?

WORD HISTORY:
Rook-English has two basic words "rook." The first "seems" to go back to Indo European "krokh/krekh," which may have meant "crow, blackbird," although ancient Sanskrit, an early form of Indo European, had a word that meant "male bird, rooster." This gave Old Germanic "(k)hrokaz," which meant "crow." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hroc," with the same meaning. This later became "rok," before the modern spelling. The word is seldom used anymore, at least not in the U.S. or Canada. By the late 1500s, this gave English a verb form, meaning "to cheat," perhaps from the notion of the bird "stealing food from other birds." When I was a kid, it was common to hear "I got rooked," or "Don't rook me," but I don't often hear the word as much anymore. Forms of the word in the other Germanic languages have all either died out, or like their English relative, they are seldom used. Interestingly, German has the now little used noun "Ruch," which means "poorly thought of by others, bad reputation," but whether this is a relative of the English word, I'm not certain, although the idea of the English meaning "cheat" and the German meaning "bad reputation" are certainly similar.

The second, and more common modern word "rook," meaning "a playing piece for chess," has an unclear origin, although it seems to trace back to Hindi "rut," the name used for "a playing piece representing chariot mounted forces in the original game of chess," as chess originated in India at least 1500 years ago.^ The Persians borrowed the game and the word as "rukh." Later, when Persia was conquered by Muslims, Arabic borrowed the word as "rukhkh." The spread of Islam into southwestern Europe eventually spread the game and the word to give Old French "roc," and this was borrowed into English in the late 1200s or early 1300s.

^ The original game from India was based upon military forces; thus, "chariot mounted forces" (they also used pieces to represent cavalry, infantry and elephant mounted forces). The later change in the names of the game pieces in Europe (as in "Bishop" and "Knight") came as the Church and nobility were powerful forces in European society. Hindi is an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree, as is Persian.

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

This was first published in late 2011, with some editing/additions 3/11/2016.


"Have We Lost Our Idealism?"

The "Great Depression" brought Americans together; unfortunately, it was often in a soup kitchen line, but it also made middle class Americans relate to those below them, rather than to those above them. Just a few years before, as Americans chased money and class status, they had related more to those above, as they too desired to get rich, and quickly. The economic collapse not only thwarted the hopes of many of achieving great wealth, it often reversed any economic gains made by some Americans. It also showed how ruthless and greedy some Americans really were. Many of the "haves" didn't reach some pinnacle, stop, and see who they could help. No, they kept going, crushing anyone standing in their way of accumulating even more money they couldn't spend in a hundred lifetimes or more.* By the late 1930s along came a movie that seemed to capture the essence of the times, "Mr Smith Goes To Washington." Instead of a pompous Donald Trump sitting as king, and issuing statements of  "You're fired," the movie appealed to the great idealism of Americans for fairness and the offering of help to others. It strongly condemned selfishness and greed, and the accompanying corruption. If you haven't seen this movie, or if you haven't seen it in a while, please watch it. It may just restore some of your faith in what this country can be. The movie uses the young to help bring down corruption, and today's Occupy Wall Street movements have many young people involved. They aren't perfect, but the task they face against entrenched interests and corruption is every bit as daunting as the interests and corrupt individuals who tried to trample Jimmy Stewart's character in the movie. Not all Americans have lost their idealism to make this a country and a world of more fairness. Similar movements are also present in many other parts of the world, and indeed, international cooperation will be needed to bring about the necessary changes to move the world forward, and not to let it slide back into the Dark Ages and feudalism, with the likes of Donald Trump living in a castle, with the rest of us groveling as his serfs. If that image scares you, it should!

* My progressive brethren don't always like to hear this, but Herbert Hoover was not one of those who spent his life trying to accumulate more wealth. Unlike many who "claim" religion, Hoover actually took his religious beliefs (he was a Quaker) seriously. His religion espoused that if you were successful, you were obligated to "give back" to society. Besides donating money to causes, Hoover entered public service, first in the Wilson administration, then in administering food programs in Europe to help prevent mass starvation of Europeans during and after World War One. While a firm opponent of communism, Hoover tried to keep people in the then developing Soviet Union from starving. I don't recall his exact words, but when asked about helping people in a Bolshevik country, he answered something to the effect that he didn't ask their political beliefs; they were human beings. There are not many of us who would say something like that, certainly not the likes of a Ted Cruz. Hoover then served as Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations before becoming president. This high achievement proved to be his undoing in terms of public admiration, as the Great Depression severely damaged his reputation. Of course, he made some unwise policy choices and he was too ideological on some issues, like opposing direct aid to states to help the unemployed and needy,* and even when he reversed course, his reputation had been so sullied, he got no credit for it. Later it was found that Hoover had given away much of his money during his presidency, and he did mobilize Americans to give record amounts to charities during those desperate times. He did NOT accept his salary as president. I may not agree with everything he did, but I give credit where I feel it is due. It's not good to "beat up on" those who may have opposed your ideas, but who then come to embrace those ideas. Welcome those who join you, for in that case, you have won the argument.

* Hoover's ideology certainly clung at times to "the old ways," and in the case with aid to the needy, his ideas were far too optimistic and idealistic, as the problem of hunger during the Great Depression was so huge, the traditional aid by the individual states and charities was overwhelmed. His refusal to admit to that fact seriously damaged his image, and indeed, gave the public a new image of the former humanitarian Hoover, as a man who would let people starve. It was an image that lasted for the rest of his life with many Americans, although at least a few softened their stance against him, over time. Hoover did finally admit to himself the need for direct federal aid to the needy, and signed it into law, but the damage to his reputation had been done.

WORD HISTORY:
Heat-Closely related to "hot," this word's ultimate origins are uncertain, but it could be a Germanic invention, or borrowing from a non-Indo European source, or, as some believe, a variation of Indo European. Old Germanic had "haitijo/haitija," which meant "heat." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "haetu/hait," which also meant "heat." By Middle English it had become "hete," before the modern spelling. Note: Old English also had "haetha," which meant "hot weather." The verb form, meaning "to heat, to make hot, to become hot," traces back to Old Germanic "haitijan(an)." This gave Anglo-Saxon "haetan," with the same meanings. German has the noun "Hitze," and the verb "heizen" (the "z" is pronounced as "ts," as in the ending of the word "hits"); some Low German dialects have the noun "Hett," and the verb "hette;" Dutch has the noun "hitte," and the verb "(ver)hitten," which is used in the figurative sense, "stir emotions" (Dutch and Frisian now use forms of "warm" to mean "to heat something"); Frisian has "hjittens," Icelandic has "hita," Danish has "hede" (often in compounds), Norwegian has "het/hete," and Swedish has the noun "hetta."

See more at the history of "hot:" http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/12/allied-leaders-of-world-war.html

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part 3

This was first published in late 2011.

Two things I should have included in the last segment: first, as I noted, the wealthy help drive up prices, and Republicans want to give them more tax cuts, which will help them to do more of the same. They don't need the money for living expenses, so they use the money to make more money. All of this Republican, "give the 'job creators' tax cuts" (they're afraid to use the term 'rich' or 'the wealthy'), and they'll create more jobs, is something we've heard for over thirty years.* What do we have? High unemployment and stagnant or falling incomes for many Americans, while the incomes for the wealthiest among us have seen marked gains. The money these folks have been pouring into "investments" (like I noted in "Part 2") create few, if any, jobs, unless you live in maybe, China. If it worked, we'd all be living in heaven come to earth; well, that is, if the wages and benefits paid were decent. Talk about a massive fraud perpetrated upon the American people! Second, many Democrats too, including the President, must look into the nearest mirror and ask themselves what they really believe, and what they are willing to fight for. The fanatics in the Republican Party (not everyone) espouse a bunch of nonsense, and they have done so for decades (bomb or go to war just about anyone who doesn't like us, give tax cuts to wealthy people who can't spend the money they have now, cut government to make it less and less viable, cut government programs that actually help average and low income people, destroy unions to help the wealthy make more money, etc), but like them or not, they stick by their nonsense, and they bully most wavering Republicans in Congress into going along with them. All of this anti-government talk from Republicans over the years makes me wonder if they are really trying to undo the results of the Civil War; after all, the Republican Party is now a southern-based political party, and that's where much of this anti-government nonsense really comes from.** It also dates from pre-Civil War times, if you get my drift. I keep telling you, they want to take us back to ______ (pick a century).

The votes to win elections do not reside in the relatively small percentage of wealthy Americans. The votes needed to win elections are largely in the broad middle income segment of the country. So how did the country get turned so topsy turvy, with immense reactionary elements having taken over? It's really very simple. The small upper income segment has gotten the large middle segment (and even some of the lower segment) to vote for their agenda; that is, to vote for candidates who will support what the wealthy want, like less regulation, tax cuts on investments and dividends, etc. This isn't rocket science folks. They and their GOP supporters have done everything to keep the country divided into selfish interest groups, or to encourage such. I see it all of the time. This stuff isn't about saving the country, it is about divide and conquer. My love of languages makes me a translator of ENGLISH, when it is contorted: "We don't want you to die, but we don't want any national health insurance, that's socialism. But we don't want you to die. Did we already say that?" TRANSLATION: "If you're sick or in pain, the hell with you! But we don't want you to die." Saying you don't want people to die is NOT the same as doing something to save lives. Talk is cheap. If Randy were the only doctor in a small town way out in a rural area, and you came in one night and said, "Doc, I'm really sick. I need help." So Doc Randy says, "Ya got insurance?" You answer, "No." Randy asks, "Ya got any money?" You answer, "Not really." So Doc Randy says, "I don't want you to die, but there's a hospital over that mountain and over the next mountain. Takes about 3 hours to get there, but I don't want you to die; after all, I'm doctor, and a Christian." Now that ought to save your life!

* The argument also goes, "Don't punish people for being successful with higher taxes." I think most Americans would welcome the opportunity to be "punished" for such success. Tax rates were much higher under Ronald Reagan, something curiously left out of most arguments made by today's rightwingers.

** In terms of the political parties, things have changed tremendously since the days of the Civil War. Back then, the Republican Party was new, and it had grown as an anti-slavery party, and as such, it was largely a northern-based party. The Democratic Party, even though national, had a solid core based in the south, and it was a pro-states' rights party, which meant many supported slavery. Interestingly too, the most conservative elements of the country remained in the Democratic Party until the last few decades, when they shifted to the Republicans, where they still remain (Phil Gramm and Rick Perry, for instance, are both former Democrats, and of course, Ronald Reagan was a former Democrat, but he supported much of the New Deal back then). On the other hand, some of the most progressive elements of the country were in the Republican Party, but that began to change most visibly after Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, left office, although it took decades to complete. In fact, when I was a kid, the battles within the Republican Party were between the moderate and progressive "Rockefeller wing," as it was often termed, and the conservative wing, which eventually was able to nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, bringing the Republicans closer to today's very conservative party.

WORD HISTORY:
Stock-While this word has quite a number of specific meanings (too many to cover here), they trace back to the same Old Germanic root, but the origins beyond Germanic are uncertain. Old Germanic had "stukkaz," which meant "tree trunk." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "stocc," which meant "tree trunk," but also "log, stump, stake." It also developed the meaning "abode," perhaps from the wood (tree trunk) used to construct such. Further development became "the floor (story) of a house or building," a meaning seemingly passed from English to German, since one of the meanings of German "Stock" is, "a floor above ground level." This "could" come from the idea of branches (floors/stories) from the tree trunk. This also came to be used in ancestry and family meanings, "They come from Irish stock," and "family tree" is a term still used in genealogy today. "Meat stock" seems to also come from the notion of a "base" (back to the tree trunk) from which soup, stews, or gravies are made; thus too, "stock" in the sense of "supplies," retains that notion, "We're going to stock up on canned goods" (goods that can form the basis of a meal), as does the business sense, "Let me see if we have that item in stock." "Stock" in a corporation also carries that same general notion, "Money provided as a basis to grow a company." Old English "stocc" then became "stok," before the modern spelling. The verb form seems to have developed in the 1500s/1600s. "Stocky" developed from the idea of a person "built as solidly as a tree trunk." Most of the other Germanic languages have forms of the word, although meanings vary, and some are used more in modern compounds, rather than as stand alone words. I could not find forms of the word in Frisian and Icelandic, although both once had forms, but I cannot say with certainty they don't have them in the modern languages, as they could be little used. German and Low German have "Stock," Dutch has "stok," Norwegian has "stokk," Danish has "stok," and Swedish has "stock."

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

This article was first published in late 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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