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

On election day 2008, financially battered Americans, fearful that the nation, and the world, might be entering into a new era of economic depression, sent a very clear message, as Barack Obama won the presidency and Democrats made gains in both the US Senate and the House of Representatives. Barack Obama won about 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 45 3/4%, but in the Electoral College, Obama won 365 votes to McCain's 173. Various exit polls showed Obama did well among many demographic groups, with Senator McCain, in major categories, only winning voters 65 and over by a single digit margin, and in the broader category of white voters, he won by about 10 points.*   

In the U.S. Senate, a strong Democratic tide prevailed as the Democrats gained eight seats, although one of those seats, in Minnesota, was not a definite gain until several months later, as the race was so close.** In the House of Representatives, twelve Republican members of the House retired prior to the election and all twelve seats were won by Democrats, as Democrats gained 21 seats overall and increased their majority. 

When Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the racist and bigoted segment among white voters, many of whom seemingly shifted over to the Republicans from the Democrats,*** helped to form a floor of support under the GOP and to offer a resistance to Obama, and often to Democrats, in general. Certainly not all opponents of Obama were (or are) racists or bigots, but a certain element "joined" the Tea Party, where they could "hide out," in my opinion, criticize the "black Muslim guy" in the White House, as some viewed Obama, but still claim, "I'm not a racist, I just care about deficits, freedom, the price of tea and can't we go back to 1773?" The Tea Party was not truly a political party, but rather a conservative-libertarian political movement that became an activist wing, and thus, an important part of the Republican Party coalition. The Tea Party members waved teabags and some wore colonial and early American garb, which gives you some idea of the century they likely preferred to modern times. Of course, they also just as likely forgot about the drawbacks of the 1700s, like no Internet... well, that might not be a good example. Now in 2017, you barely hear the name "Tea Party" anymore, as the racist elements have now come out more into the open by marching with the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, as we now have a president who sees some "good people" in these groups. For about 4 or 5 years, beginning in 2009, the Tea Party was highly visible and it proved to be troublesome for both Democrats and for the more traditional Republicans. If there was much "organization" to the Tea Party, it was represented by the financial support of the Koch political organization and former member of Congress, Dick Armey. Traditional Republicans need to look at the Kochs and Armey for their support and courting of the disruptive forces to oppose Obama, but which then helped to bring Donald Trump and company to take over the Republican Party, a force which now threatens the very nation; however, this was not done without the inadvertent help of Democrats. Next... Economic stimulus, Wall Street bankers and Obama administers health care to the GOP and helps it back to its feet...  

* The demographic exit polls I looked over were all similar, with minor differences in some categories, but in no case did I see major discrepancies that showed, for example, McCain winning by a few points in a particular category in most polls, but with another poll or two showing Obama as winning that category. One of the close categories was for "men," where "essentially" Obama and McCain split the vote, although some polls showed a slight tilt to one candidate or the other.

** Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, a Republican, switched to the Democratic Party in the spring of 2009 (the new Senate was first seated in January of 2009). In the late summer of 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, a Democrat, died. A temporary Democratic replacement was named, until a special election produced a Republican election victory in early 2010.

*** I told a little about one of these "converts" in Part 48 of this series. Here is the link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2017/11/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part.html     

WORD HISTORY:
Garb-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. It is related to "gear," a word from Germanic. "Garb" goes back to the Old Germanic verb, "garwijanan," which meant, "to prepare, to make ready;" thus also the more specific, "to equip (make ready) for battle." This produced Germanic "garwa," meaning, "ready, finished." The verb also produced Germanic "garwi," a noun for, "clothing, military wear (gear, equipment)." This was borrowed by Italian from one of the Old High German dialects of the Alps region, which had, "garawe," meaning, "mode of dress, adorned attire." The Italian form, "garbo," meaning, "stylishness, elegance," seemingly from the notion of "well adorned (well prepared) form of attire." This was borrowed by French as "garbe" ("graceful appearance/bearing"), and this was borrowed by English in the second half of the 1500s, and the shift in meaning to, "type or mode of dress/attire," came in the 1600s. It is related to German "gerben" (to prepare hides for wear or use by tanning), Low German "garven" (same meaning as German). Other related forms in the Germanic languages came to mean "to make;" thus also, "to do," from the original notion of "to make ready, to prepare." Its relationship to "gear" goes back to the same Old Germanic form and the forms that generally meant "equipment, military arms, clothing," which later broadened a good deal in the English meaning to, "saddles, harnesses for horses and pack animals," then also, "parts for ships," and "mechanical parts for machinery," as well as, "equipment to do various activities, like fishing and physical sports."   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next, the results of Election 2008 ...

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

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

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

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

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

The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown, Part 4

Before getting into further information on the financial crisis that was then developing, the political situation was not at a standstill. 

The 2008 Democratic Party nominating process: the two main Democrats involved were Hillary Clinton, a U.S. Senator from New York, and Barack Obama, a U.S. Senator from Illinois. Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, started the race with a decided advantage, as she was well known, and both she and her husband remained popular among traditional Democratic constituencies, like many labor unions, non-union working class voters, older white voters and moderate Democrats. Bill Clinton had been very popular among black Americans, but the draw of a highly viable man of black heritage, Barack Obama, was a difficult challenge for the Clintons, and it cut into what would have likely been a staunch Clinton group of supporters, and Clinton's likely nomination, had Barack Obama not run for president at that time. On the other hand, many Democratic women voters were immensely excited about Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Besides black voters, Obama had a good deal of support from highly educated voters, younger voters and many liberals. Supporters of both candidates were encouraged by the rough political landscape for their Republican opponents, so that if they could get their candidate nominated, they felt there was a good chance that candidate would win the presidency in November, given the unpopularity of George W. Bush, the then Republican president. Further the 2006 election had given Democrats control of both houses of Congress, leaving Republicans reeling. It would get worse for Republicans.

The early results gave Obama a surprising win in the Iowa Caucus, which temporarily gave him a major boost in the nation's first actual primary election, New Hampshire. In the end, Clinton won a close race in New Hampshire, and the tough quest for the Democratic nomination between Clinton and Obama accelerated. A big endorsement for Obama came from Senator Ted Kennedy and his niece, Caroline, who was the daughter of John F. Kennedy, the president assassinated in November 1963 (Ted Kennedy was the brother of the former president). As the primary and caucus season drew to a close, Barack Obama had a lead of less than a hundred delegates over Hillary Clinton, but Obama then got pledges of support from further delegates, giving him sufficient delegates to win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August.

On the Republican side, the major candidates were: former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani (a former Democrat, and then independent), Mitt Romney, who was just leaving the governorship of Massachusetts, John McCain, a U.S. Senator from Arizona and Mike Huckabee, who was just leaving the governorship of Arkansas. When the Republican nomination process actually started, Giuliani melted down, then Romney faltered, while McCain and Huckabee became the main remaining candidates. Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus, and McCain won the primary in New Hampshire. After a mixed showing by both Romney and McCain in the following states, McCain pulled out a narrow, but big win in Florida, bringing Giuliani to withdraw from the race. McCain gained major momentum, and Romney soon quit the race, leaving only Mike Huckabee to contest McCain, but the Arizona senator won enough delegates by early March, and the nomination was his.

McCain had been able to draw from various parts of the Republican Party, but more traditional type Republicans increasingly favored him. Giuliani's "major" candidacy never materialized, and Romney's loss to McCain in New Hampshire (neighbor to Massachusetts) hurt him and gave McCain a big boost. Mike Huckabee was supported by many evangelical Christians and very conservative elements, including many Southerners, who fit into both of those categories.

Barack Obama chose Senator Joe Biden of Delaware for his vice presidential running mate, and John McCain chose Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. Biden, long a member of the U.S. Senate (elected in 1972!), helped Obama with long time Democrats, especially white working class Democrats and independents, and his long experience in government and foreign policy in the Senate, helped to balance Obama's short time in government and on the national stage. Palin proved to be controversial, although she helped McCain with more conservative elements of the GOP, including evangelicals, and she likely also helped with women voters. Palin, however, was not well known nationally, and her introduction to the country made a negative impression on some, and a majority of Americans either felt she was not qualified to assume the presidency if need be, or they felt uncertain as to her qualification to do so. Two significant things happened when Palin did interviews. First, when interviewed extensively on television by Katie Couric, then with CBS, Couric asked Palin what newspapers and magazines she read. Her general response, that she appreciated the media and that she read all of them, brought Couric to ask her to name some, but she couldn't do it. That scene and her seeming lack of knowledge even about John McCain during the interviews, including about his views on the economy, which was reeling at that time, left a negative image of Palin. Secondly, while comics took this out of context, Palin was asked by Charles Gibson (ABC) about what she had learned by living so close to Russia,* and she mentioned that Alaska and Russia were neighbors and that you could actually see Russia from one of Alaska's islands. Comedians, to the delight of Democrats, quickly turned this into Palin claiming that the fact that she could see Russia from Alaska gave her foreign policy experience, something she did not claim, although her answer did seem to say that being able to see Russia was important, but without further explanation.           

So the stage was set for the election of 2008.  

* Alaska and Russia are very close in places, something many people may not know. 

WORD HISTORY:
Parable-"Parable" is related to "parlor" ("room for sitting and talking") and to "parley" (to speak, to converse"). The first part of the word, "para," goes back to Indo European "per/pr," with the notion of "forward, off, away from, beyond, beside." "Para-" is distantly related (through Indo European) to English "for," "for-" and "fore-," all from native English forms from Old Germanic. The main part of the word, distantly related to "ball" (the form meaning, "a dance"), goes back to Indo European "gwele/gwela," with the notion of, "bubble up, rise up, overflow, throw outward or upward." This gave Ancient Greek "ballein," ("to throw"), which produced, "bole," meaning, "a throw, a toss," and the two parts gave transliterated Greek "paraballo," meaning, "a toss beside;" thus, "side by side;" thus, "a comparison." This was borrowed by Latin as "parabola," also meaning "comparison," which then passed into Old French, a Latin-based language. English borrowed the word during the 1200s, initially as "parabol," which became "parable" about one hundred years later, with the meaning, "a story used to compare to another story in meaning." The word has often carried a religious component to it from translated Biblical usage.   

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

The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown, Part 3

As the nation continued to struggle with record oil and gasoline prices, the best we could get from the Bush administration and many Republicans was how this was all part of the free market at work. On top of this, reports of escalating foreclosures began to scare the hell out of many people, including people who worked on Wall Street, or who were in some way connected to Wall Street, as they began to wonder when the financial consequences of large numbers of foreclosures would become more evident. The consequences began to show up.

In March 2008, large investment bank "Bear-Stearns" teetered on the brink of insolvency, largely as a result of the then developing mortgage and foreclosure crisis. Bear-Stearns could not get loans from other banks, as confidence in the old bank (the bank dated from the early 1920s) went out the window, and financial markets were shaky over the whole situation. The Federal Reserve (aka, "the Fed") stepped in and through a complex deal, including bailout money, orchestrated a deal whereby Bear-Stearns was acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed's decision to intervene was made in order to prevent a spill over into the rest of the economy if Bear-Stearns went down. The "free marketers" nearly had a collective stroke, as this whole process went against their vaunted principles of "free market capitalism;" known to some of us as "dog-eat-dog capitalism." I also explain the concept as, "We can do ANYTHING to the public, and we mean ANYTHING, and they can't do a damn thing to us. We don't a give a good damn about people, only about money!" I actually think the public should return the "favor," and not a give a good damn about these miserable, insatiable merchants of greed.*

The Fed intervention didn't come close to righting the miserable shape of the American financial system, but it calmed things briefly. A few months later, it became more and more evident the American banking system, and, therefore, the entire American economy (and the world's, for that matter), was on the ropes, and that the predicament with Bear-Stearns had not been an isolated incident. We waited for the other shoe to drop. Lehman Brothers, another large investment bank, dating to the mid 1800s (yes, 1800s!), was next to suffer the consequences of irresponsible capitalism. After serious declines in its stock price and announced layoffs of personnel, clients abandoned the bank in droves, withdrawing their money and assets almost instantly. The bank announced it would file for bankruptcy, and the DOW dropped 500 points in one day, with further staggering losses to follow. The Fed did not intervene, thus giving the "free marketers" their wish. With Lehman's collapse, the situation became so serious, the Bush administration, that bulwark of "free market capitalism," having oft essentially said about American economic problems, "we can't do anything about anything, because its a free market economy," announced, along with the support of the Fed, that they needed a special fund of $700 billion (with a "b") to shore up the financial system or that the country faced a new DEPRESSION, perhaps worse than the one dubbed "the Great Depression." With that name taken, what the hell would we call it?

Folks, having principles is one thing, but carrying principles to an extreme is lunacy. Driving off a cliff doesn't make you pure, it makes you NUTS, and then DEAD!

With the economy unraveling before our very eyes, the nominating process for candidates to succeed George W. Bush was taking place. On the Republican side, John McCain, who had made a run for the nomination in 2000, faced a number of candidates, most of whom dropped out of the race early on, with only Mike Huckabee of Arkansas posing any real challenge to McCain until March 2008. On the Democratic side, New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton made a strong bid to become the first woman to secure a major party nomination for president, but she was challenged by Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a powerful speaker and a man of mixed black and white racial background. So Democrats had two choices, one of which would be for the history books: the first female presidential candidate or the first African-American candidate. 

Next, the economy plunges and the political coalitions of the election of 2008 ...    

* The basic argument by the "free marketers" is, capitalists take risks hoping to make a profit on something. If that risk blows up on them, they should suffer the consequences, and government should do nothing to help them out. I would dare say, most of us probably agree with that whole concept "on paper." The problem is, these banks had become so big (remember "too big to fail?"), the failure of any one of them posed a threat to the entire economy and people's livelihoods. Further, suspicions were then rising that Bear-Stearns was not the only big bank in serious trouble.

WORD HISTORY: 
Melt-This word, closely related to "smelt,"^ and related to "malt" and "mild" (all from Germanic), goes back to Indo European "meld," with the meaning, "to soften, to make soft." This gave Old Germanic "meltanan," which meant "to melt, to dissolve." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "meltan," meaning, "to melt, to turn solid to liquid with fire, to dissolve;" thus also, "to digest." This then became "melten," before the modern form. By the way, the adjective "molten" is simply the adjectival use of the archaic past participle of "melt." The relatives of "melt" in the other Germanic languages tend to be directly connected to the closely related "smelt," and, as far as I can find, only English has both forms, "melt" and "smelt," with the latter being borrowed from Low German or Dutch, and more typically applied to the process of melting metal; whereas, in the other Germanic languages, it means the more general "melt." Icelandic has "melta," which means "digest;" that is, "the dissolving of food in the digestive system."  

^ This is the word meaning "to melt metal." English also has used the same spelling for a form of the past tense and participle of "smell," more common in England and other parts of Britain, although not uncommon in "spoken" American English. 

Some More Questions To A Republican

"Hello folks! This is Dan Ratherbe, in Philadelphia. Today I once again have Republican George Owen Pappenstiel here to speak out on the issues confronting the nation and his Republican Party, no holds barred."

DR: "Well Mr. Pappenstiel, it's been a little while since I first interviewed you." *

GOP: "Yeah, that was back when that Bomma guy claimed to be president."

DR: "That's Obama."

GOP: "Yeah right, tryin' to be Irish.... 'O' bomma... haha.... about as Irish as the rest of them people from them places in Africa."

DR: "But he IS part Irish. Don't you remember he visited Ireland?"

GOP: "Visitin' a place don't make ya from that place. I cun visit Massichew... Masseshoe... that place where Boston is, but that don't make me no Democrat, an' that's fer shur."

DR: "So what do you think of Donald Trump's first couple of months in office?"

GOP: "It's a breath o' fresh air! Finally gettin' some truth out, 'cause Ole Donald tells it like it is. That's what's gonna make America great agin, truth tellin.' Just like with that Bomma listnin' in on Ole Donald talkin' on his own private phone in his own private buildin'."

DR: "But there's been absolutely no proof that any such thing ever happened."

GOP: "That's what you librals in the media want folks ta believe. There is proof.... Ole Donald said it, didn't he? That's proof! He the president of the UUUNited States, ain't he?"

DR: "Well I assume you support the wall the president wants to build on the border with Mexico?"

GOP: "Oh now, truer words was never spoke. All them folks south of the Rio Grande is jus' what Ole Donald said 'bout them. They er murderers and rapists. Then they come up here and want US to speak Mexican."

DR: "You mean Spanish."

GOP: "No, I mean Mexican. They ain't from Spain."

DR: "So what do you think of the Republican failure to repeal Obamacare?"

GOP: "That's jus' plain terrible! Don't know what's becomin' o' this country. Wantin' ta give health care to ever'body. An' this law from Bomma helpin' to give care to millions. An' that Bernie Sanders guy... he the worst, even worse than Bomma hisself. He ain't no Christian, that fer shur."

DR: "Ah, Bernie Sanders is from a Jewish family."

GOP: "See, told ya he ain't no Christian. They jus' like those Mooselims... all from over yonder there in the Middle East. All them folks need to jus' stay over there. Ole Donald messed up there, he needs to ban people from all them countries, not jus' a few. All we do is give money to them people over there, includin' Izrel. Never knew any good people from that part of the world, not a one."

DR: "Ah... Jesus Christ."

GOP: "An' don't be takin' the Lord's name in vain, ya hear?"

DR: "Well, our time is up, Mr. Pappenstiel."

GOP: "Ya got that right, if we don't do what Ole Donald wants an' you keep takin' the Lord's name in vain. Jus' ask Pat Robertson!"


* The first "interview" was in May 2013 and this is the link:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/05/asking-republican-few-questions.html

WORD HISTORY:
Ode-This word "seems" to go back to Indo European "aweid/e-weid," which had the notion, "to make (voice) sound, to speak, to vocalize." This gave Ancient Greek the transliterated "aeido," which meant, "to sing, to give praise in song." This gave Ancient Greek "aoide/oide," a noun, "song, poetic song." Latin borrowed the word from Greek as "oda," then "ode," the form taken by Latin-based French. English borrowed the word from French, likely with reinforcement by Latin, in the late 1500s.

America Once Fought Fascists, Now It Votes Them In

(This was originally published November 10, 2016, but I made a few updates on May 31, 2018. The updates are noted below, except in this paragraph: Trump, under federal investigation, along with several cronies, for dealings with Russia and possible obstruction of justice and other crimes uncovered during the investigation, has attacked the US justice system, including the FBI. He has used the constitutional power of the pardon to free political allies and to send a message that those under indictment or already charged can count on a pardon, if they keep their mouths shut about him, his son and his son-in-law. The rule of law is under heavy assault as is the truth. Today Trump said it was untrue that he fired former FBI director, James Comey, because of the Russia investigation. Trump claimed this is a media fabrication, but it was Trump himself who said the Russia investigation was the reason on television last year. He also told the then Russian ambassador that with Comey fired, the pressure of the Russia investigation would ease. Note: some presidential pardons by other presidents have drawn fire for being political, but never was the nation's system under attack by those presidents as it is today by Trump.)    

I don't think Americans fully understand what just happened to their country, but they are about to find out. Emboldened racists, bigots, religious fanatics, will be on the move. Don't be surprised to see laws banning the teaching of evolution (religious fundamentalists have been pushing this for awhile), or any other belief not consistent with fundamentalist creationism. EVERYTHING will be on the table folks. Donald Trump's statement, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters," shows how very dangerous the situation has become, and it is reminiscent of Nazis chasing down and executing disloyal Germans for not believing in "final victory," even as Allied troops were just blocks away in 1945. 

Democracy is far more fragile than many realize. It has survived in the U.S., and is taken for granted by most Americans, because, over time, largely responsible people, in spite of some philosophical differences, transferred power back and forth, based upon elections. They believed in the overall system. Obviously, THE major exception was the Civil War era. For some time now, we have had a growing element, led by self designated "conservatives," begin to trash this very system, a strategy that became ever more nasty, ever more divisive. Their disciples took to the airwaves to spread the faith, and in hateful and divisive speech that could bring a smile to the face of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, the faith did, indeed, spread. They have preached hatred of government at all levels, as well as of "liberals, " which seems to mean just about anyone remotely connected to modern times, instead of to some previous century with some sort of perceived "glory days."  Dispirited Americans, angry at wealthy business interests and at free trade that cost them good paying jobs, were often a ready made audience for these these venom spewing manipulators, who were paid for by .... wealthy business interests and free traders. I haven't heard this expression for quite some time, but many a drinker and outright alcoholic, suffering from a hangover, would oft say, "I need a drink, because what makes you sick, will make you well." Really? The propagandists convinced many an American that what benefited a few, would really be good for them too, although statistics have shown the opposite, but they voted for Republicans, because "what made you sick, will make you well."

The Nazis and communists both USED democratic systems to DESTROY the respective democratic systems in various countries. Hitler did not "seize power," the Nazis became a major political party and the number of votes they received convinced some German leaders that they needed to be in the government. Weimar was far from perfect, but it retained the constitutional right of the people to vote, and chancellors came and went, Reichstag (parliament) representatives came and went, so at least providing for some semblance of democracy, even though the chancellors constitutionally circumvented the Reichstag,* by issuing decrees, because the Reichstag was so dysfunctional (sound like Congress under Republicans the last few years?) People have long dissected every aspect of the Nazi takeover of Germany. Why? History helps to teach us what went before, and hopefully, how we can avoid the mistakes of the past. That's why the nonsense of memorizing dates is, well, NONSENSE! They are irrelevant. Those here now will not have to dissect or read about how this has happened in the United States; no, because we have watched it unfold before our very eyes, with far too many participating in it directly. We allowed Republicans to get away with not voting on a Supreme Court nominee offered by a sitting U.S. president. The Republican controlled Congress has sat dormant for years; let me tell you, they will sit dormant no longer, as they plan to consolidate power and strip you of rights and dignity. They enabled money to buy tremendous access into government, something that now will no longer be possible to overturn. It's all too late, folks. This is what we allowed to happen. Since Reagan, some have allowed themselves to be bought for tax cuts. The saddest thing is, many of those same people already had lots of money, but they gave up their consciences for tax cut money they didn't need. 

Americans have sat and watched fascism rise and, now, take over. Traditional conservatives were complicit. Romney played to the fascists in 2012, but then he later tried to change things in the last few months as Trump rose to lead the GOP. Romney is not a fascist, he's a pandering chameleon, who at least finally stood up, but was far too late in doing so. There is NO reset button. Buyer's remorse will get you nowhere. Once you let fascists in, try to get them back out. Many Americans have now not only endangered their freedom, they have given the nuclear codes to a wacko, thus endangering the world and all of humanity. They totally gerrymandered themselves into essentially permanent control of the House of Representatives and many state legislatures. They now will cement the Supreme Court to do their bidding and to make the present and future more akin to something like the 14th Century, than to modern times. Fundamentalist, fanatical religion will now be front and foremost, and BLATANTLY involved in governing.

The big media was complicit, with seemingly not even one innocent person under that Big Top circus tent. When they go to the toilet, they wipe their mouths afterward, because that's where the real dung comes out. Further, and this is not about my just previous comment, but my suggestion for progressives is, if you're going to watch MSNBC, don't take everything as gospel. They are good people, but they are so committed to one side, they lack perspective at times. I'm a devout progressive, but I rarely tune in to any of the chatter stations. Over time I've seen posts online suggesting that everything will be fine, because people on MSNBC said how the demographics are going to pretty much guarantee Democratic wins. Further, other posts told of the imminent demise of the GOP, something I highly questioned in a reply, only to be told how wrong I was. Hopefully, everyone now sees how badly the situation was misjudged; in fact, it is now DEMOCRATS who are in a perilous situation, and although we won't go away, expect very difficult times. If things turn out better than that, great, but be prepared for just about any shenanigans you can imagine, and even some that you can't imagine. As for intellectuals, they sat debating the definition of a fascist, as if that were the important issue at hand. Like Sheldon Cooper, they worry about proper definitions, while not understanding what is going on around them. When someone shouts to them, "Look, that guy is going to set fire to the forest," they reply, "Oh, I don't see a forest, all I see is a bunch of trees." (Updated 5-31-18) As they walk to the gallows, they will ask, "Hm, I wonder if this is fascism?" And someone will reply, "We'd better get this resolved, because they're going to hang us in about the next 60 seconds."

Obama is a VERY good man, I love him, BUT he came to office promising change, "Change We Can Believe In," and he immediately sent the wrong signal by giving Wall Street bankers prominent positions within his administration, after Wall Street bankers brought about the mortgage crisis, which brought the economy to its knees, along with phony high oil prices. The more things change, the more they stay the same. He didn't need Larry Summers or Tim Geithner to tell him that the country needed a stimulus. Symbols DO MATTER. He then chose the absolutely worst issue to take on at that point in his presidency, and in that overall time frame ... HEALTH CARE. The atmosphere was more full of noxious fumes than being locked in a 4 x 4 room with a lactose intolerant person who just ate a slice of cheese, a bowl of vanilla ice cream and washed it all down with a pint of 1% milk (trying to watch their weight). The whole thing was not thought through, and regardless of the president's great intentions, it was THE thing that derailed his presidency, as it gave Republicans, flat on their backs from the Iraq War and the economic meltdown, the opportunity to get up and start swinging, a role they love, and just in time to get all energized and to rout Democrats in a crucial "census election," giving them control of many state legislatures and governorships, so they could adjust (gerrymander) congressional and state legislative districts to keep themselves in control for the foreseeable future. With the House of Representatives then in Republican hands, Obama could not get legislation passed. The next midterm, in 2014, saw Republicans take control of the Senate; and, thus later, prevent a vote on the President's Supreme Court nominee, leaving the seat empty. Now that they have Trump, the Republicans will approve his nominee, and control the court for decades (Update 5-31-18: Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed, highly conservative Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, who took office in April 2017). ALL OF THIS TRAGEDY traces back to a well meaning man trying to help millions of Americans get health care, but it was terribly misguided, and now the ultimate insult will come, as Trump and Republicans repeal the law, removing the largest legislative achievement of Barack Obama (Update 5-31-18: Trump and Republicans failed to repeal the law, but just barely; however, Trump and Republicans have weakened the law, leaving it vulnerable, but its ultimate fate remains to be seen). All of the rancor and the decimation of Democratic officeholders in the 2010 election, and even the loss of the Senate in 2014 can be somewhat attributed to health care, as the huge losses in 2010, set up the Republican win in 2014, it will all have been in vain.  

I've seen posts by some on the left who talk about revolution, but it's not practical, as the weaponry is on the OTHER side! Militia groups and many, but certainly not all, gun owners from all walks of life, didn't buy all of these weapons, especially automatic weapons, to hunt ducks. This has always been about staging a coup d'état, or protecting a regime favorable to them, which they will now have. Further, many, perhaps most, in law enforcement, and many in the military, will gladly carry out suppression of any revolt at Trump's direction; both favor Republicans in elections by substantial amounts. The militias and others, just like Hitler's Storm Troopers and Mussolini's Blackshirt militia,  will operate to control the country. Some of you, and I love you and I love your spirit, needed to learn "compromise," and the art of having to hold your nose to support something you may not completely agree with, but you have to do it to avoid the greater harm, although I'm not sure it would have made a difference anyway, and we've always had some smaller political parties in the US which get anything from a percent or two of the vote, up to far larger percentages. Now is not time to be fighting over what is past, but if you're driving down the road in a Smart car, and an eighteen-wheeler is headed right for you, you crash into the guard rail to avoid being run over, literally, by the truck. It wasn't a great choice, but you had to take it. We saw this same thing, a lack of perspective, with Edward Snowden, who exposed U.S. government spying on its citizens, but then ran to Russia and Vladimir Putin, one of the enemies of humanity. You know, can you imagine an Italian in 1936 saying, "Boy, that Mussolini is a son-of-a-bitch, I'm going to go live in .... Germany!" Julian Assange is in much the same vein. Okay with both of them, show our faults, but also show the faults of others, but there was NO perspective. 

* (Updated 5-31-18) I say, "constitutionally circumvented the Reichstag," because Article 48 of the German constitution of the Weimar Republic gave the president the power to rule by decree in an "emergency," a term that was not defined within the constitution. The chancellor submitted the decrees to the president. 

WORD HISTORY:
Abet-This word, related to "bite," goes back to Indo European "bheid," which had the notion "to split." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "bitanan," meaning "to bite," and the derived "baitjanan," which meant, "to make or cause to bite;" thus, "incite, egg on," especially for use with dogs in hunting. Old French borrowed the word, likely from Frankish, a Germanic language/dialect, as "beter," and tacked on the prefix, which came from Latin "ad," itself from Indo European "ad," with the notion of, "to, toward, near, at," with the French form meaning, "to incite dogs to chase after." English borrowed the word in the latter half of the 1300s as "abetten," but it could have also blended with an existing English word from the same Old Germanic word, the English word being, "bætan," which also meant, "to hunt with dogs," but originally, "to make bite."       

Natural Born In The Political or Racial Eye Of The Beholder?

A part of the nasty side of politics has involved race, besides political beliefs or affiliation. This subject has been a part of American politics, both directly and indirectly, since the nation's birth, with periods of red hot intensity, including the lead up to the Civil War, the war itself, and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. In more recent years it has been about a Black American (actually black and white mixed), with a then relatively atypical name, twice running for, and twice winning, the presidency, a feat that has been unacceptable to some insecure Americans. The thing is, politics is often, if not always, driven by emotion and political views, not rational, robot-like consideration of facts, proposals, or plans, not that facts, proposals and plans make no difference. For instance, with Barack Obama's run for the presidency came the charge that he was not born in the United States, a charge which continued long after he had won election to the nation's highest office, and I'm sure a charge which still festers in some minds to this day.* With public documents and public officials attesting to Obama's birth in Hawaii (to an American mother and Kenyan father), coupled with birth announcements in newspapers from there, a large majority of Americans, led by Democrats and independents, accepted the evidence and tried to move on, only to have a minority keep the issue in the news.** I do want to point out, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain was born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone, then under American control, but not in the U.S. proper. While McCain faced some scrutiny over his birthplace in his runs for the presidency, he never faced the fierce scrutiny given to Obama, although McCain never became president in his attempts for the office. Further, Ted Cruz, a potential Republican presidential candidate, was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother and a then Cuban father (the father became an American citizen in 2005). It remains to be seen how much, if any, scrutiny Cruz may receive about his birth, but at the moment, the political right "seems" not to care much where Cruz was born. ***

Clearly a person's political views, and at times, a person's racial views, define their acceptance or rejection of certain evidence and what constitutes a legal definition for certain issues.

* Those believing Barack Obama to be foreign born are often dubbed "Birthers."

** There have been lots of public opinion polls (see Politico, the National Journal, Gallup, Harris Poll) on Obama's birthplace status, but in polls from  2009 to early 2011 "generally" about a quarter of Republicans said they believed him to be foreign-born, with about a similar number of Republicans saying they weren't sure of his birthplace.  

*** To be clear, or maybe "unclear," the issue of what the Constitution means about the requirement for a president to be a "natural born citizen" has never been clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court, so questions of interpretation remain. It is worth remembering, some early American presidents were not born in the United States, but rather in what were then British colonies. The late Barry Goldwater, a former Republican nominee for president in 1964, was born in Arizona, before it became a state. George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney, was born to two American parents in Mexico, and George Romney ran in Republican primaries for president in the 1960s.

WORD HISTORY:
Nature-This word goes back to Indo European "gen/gn," which had the notion "create, produce, give birth." This gave Latin "nasci," which meant "to come from, to be born," which then produced Latin "natus," meaning "born." This then gave Latin "natura," with the meanings "origin, characteristic(s) given by birth," then passed on to Old French, a heavily Latin-based language, as "nature." English borrowed the word from French in the 1200s. The "origin and characteristics" meaning broadened to include the meaning "the universe, the world, creative force." Usages include, "That guy is an athlete by nature;" that is, "he was born that way." Also, "It's just her nature to be skeptical," a meaning "assuming" she was born that way, which may or may not be true, but we most certainly say things like that. And also, "It was awful to see the lions kill the zebra, but that's just nature," using "nature" as the "creative force" bestowing the characteristic on the lions.

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

"The 2004 Election" Part One

The Democratic Party drew a number of candidates into the nominating process to oppose incumbent Republican George W. Bush in the 2004 election: Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich, as well as some others. Polls showed former Vermont governor, Howard Dean, to be leading the pack prior to the Iowa Caucus, where he then finished well behind both Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Still, Dean's third place showing did him far less damage than the repeated showing of what became his famous "scream" during his speech to supporters that night. To show that he intended to press on, Dean shouted out how his campaign was going to go on to the various upcoming primary and caucus states. He ended that listing of the states with a big "Yeeeeaaaahhhhh!" Television cameras and microphones clearly picked up the whole speech, and over the next few days these last few seconds of his rallying call was played what seemed like seven million times, or maybe it was ten million times, on cable, on broadcast news programs and on local television stations. Dean's poor results in Iowa became secondary to his "scream," as the nation's comedians each took their jabs at the now diminished candidate.*

Kerry won the high profile New Hampshire Primary and John Edwards won in South Carolina, but Kerry's mounting momentum prompted Dean, Clark and Lieberman to drop out, and Kerry won several states in a row. Early March brought the so called "Super Tuesday" votes of several states, with John Edwards as Kerry's only real major opposition. Kerry's big win in most of the states that day brought Edwards to give up the race. Kerry chose John Edwards as his running mate and the nomination was made official at the Democratic National Convention in late July in Boston.**

Next, Bush is renominated and the campaign for the White House ....

* First, "the media" is an industry. Second, the television networks and the individual television and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and in more recent times, Websites, are for profit businesses within the media industry. They all run various stories, some of which catch the public's attention far more than others. Once a story catches on, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly (by our individual views), they are going to run with it; as I like to say, "They are going to climb onto that pony and ride it until it drops dead."

** That convention featured a keynote address by a then Illinois state senator who was running for a U.S. Senate seat, Barack Obama. The speech was so well received, it led to Obama's own entry into the presidential campaign just four years later.

WORD HISTORY:
Tool-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but Old Germanic had "tawijan," which had the notion of "to prepare or make something into something, make ready." This then produced "towla(n)," a noun meaning "implement used to make or prepare something, a tool." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "tol," with the same meaning. This then became "tool" where it has remained for many centuries. Some of the other Germanic languages had forms of the word, meaning "work implement," but most have died out or continued more toward the idea of making fabric or fabric products of some kind, which I'll cover soon in the closely related English word "taw," which is now obsolete. English "tool" may have survived because of reinforcement by Old Norse, as Danes and Norwegians settled in the north and eastern parts of England, bringing along their related word to keep the word and meaning alive. Some more direct Germanic relatives of "tool," with that general meaning, survive, however: Danish "værktøj" (the first part of this compound is closely related to English "work"), Icelandic "tól;" Norwegian "verktøy" (see the Danish entry). Just a thought here, but "tool" is so understood to be a general word for a work implement in English, that people in England may never have felt the need to make it into a compound, like "worktool," to distinguish it from other words using "tool." But as I noted, other Germanic languages had words using or derived from "tool" that applied to making fabric and such and they, therefore, may have felt a need to distinguish between meanings?

The Struggles For Change Are Timeless

This was first published in April 2014.


I suppose way, way back in time, one group of early humans yelled over to another group of early humans in the next tree and said something like, "You know, if we go live in that opening over there in the side of that big clump of soil and rock, we could have protection from the weather, we won't have to worry as much about lightening and forest fires (after all, there was no "Smoky the Bear, as yet), we'd be safer from predators and we could go out to get our food right from there. Being on the ground, maybe could actually put some of the seeds in the soil and grow some of our own food." The other group likely gasped and replied, "Oh my, we've been swinging through the trees for years, if we were meant to live in such a place, we'd be there. We've survived all this time, we don't need to go changing anything. Don't go rocking the tree" (I guess they said that, because boats hadn't been invented yet), and besides, there are bats in that place. And you want us to go live in there? Why they'd come flying in, scaring the Neanderthal right out of us. No wonder our neighbor three trees down* told us you are dangerous with all your newfangled ideas. Yep, Rushes Limbbough warned us about you. He said no one's going to get him off his ass in a tree to climb down and go putting seeds in the soil. He only charged us a handful of nuts and a handful of berries to tell us that, too."

Change is tough, the bigger the change, the tougher it becomes. The struggle of women to even begin to fully integrate into American jobs didn't happen because a bunch of old, white businessmen suddenly woke up one day and said, "Gee, we've had a revelation, and we're going to hire more women, and we're even going to give some a chance at leadership positions." It took work and, yes, some confrontation, although World War Two provided women with the opportunity to enter jobs long seen as the preserve of men. While much of the prewar mentality returned when the war ended, things have never been the same, and women have made a long, slow climb into many jobs, including top corporate jobs, although they still lag behind men in many areas, as well as in pay in many jobs. In 2008 Democrats had an epic presidential nomination battle, pitting former First Lady Hillary Clinton against then Senator Barack Obama, a man of mixed black and white race. With Republicans in deep trouble at that time, the Democratic nominee was likely to be the next president, bringing either our first woman or first person of (known) black heritage to the presidency. While this thought was tantalizingly positive to some, it scared the absolute Neanderthal, ah, I mean, hell out of others. A guy I knew back then, a life long Democrat, was terribly upset over the choice in the Democratic primary, saying, "Some choice, a b----, or a n-----." His racism trumped his disdain for women, and he voted for Hillary in the primary, only to switch to McCain in the general election. I'm pretty certain he officially became a Republican after the election. Obama's election mobilized the racists and bigots who became determined to bring him down, even if it brought the country down in the process. Had Hillary Clinton been elected, it would have mobilized the Clinton haters, and those terrified of women in high places, to seek her demise.** We already had a prelude to a Hillary presidency, as Republicans relentlessly pursued both of the Clintons in the 1990s. Change scares some people because of its uncertainty, but it scares others, because they're afraid it will succeed.

* Compare that to the modern music group, "Three Doors Down."

** Not all opponents of Obama are racists or bigots, nor are all opponents of Hillary Clinton anti-women, but it speaks volumes that many of those who are such have gravitated to one political party.

WORD HISTORY:
Limb-This word is of uncertain heritage, although an Indo European root form, "elei/lei," with the notion ''bend, flexible," is a possibility. The Germanic forms seem, however, to be exclusive to Germanic, as there appear to be no known relatives in other languages, including those of Indo European derivation. Old Germanic had "lithuh," with the meaning of "extremity, appendage, body part." This gave Old English "lith," which meant "appendage, tree branch, joint, body part." A variant of the Old Germanic word, "limuh," emerged, but why the change to "m" from "th" is unknown, but it too meant "body part, extremity, tree branch." This gave Old English "lim," a form which lasted for hundreds of years, before the ending "b" began to be used circa 1600, but with no apparent reason, although the same happened to "thumb" prior to "limb." Could it have been, in both cases, a dialect where the ending came out with a "b" sound pronounced? Or, in the case of "limb," it could have been a spelling influenced by Latin "limbus," and the derived "limbo," neither of which is related to English "limb." In most cases, the other Germanic languages have words resembling Old English "lith," a word no longer used in English, as "lim(b)" became the prevailing word, but Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all have "lem," for "limb,' and Icelandic has the compound "útlimum," for "limb."

The Ship That Sailed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is There A Nurse In The House?

Just some food for thought here:

Not long after his election, President Barack Obama made a choice to pursue health care reform, part of which would provide most citizens with some type of medical insurance coverage. Reform of America's "health care system," a "system" where various figures suggest "the health care system" makes up something like one sixth or even one fifth of the American economy, was/is a daunting task.

To tackle that system, the President decided to use a general blueprint taken from Republicans, especially one Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, but also commented upon by none other than Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. These two Republicans were left with much lying, I mean, "explaining" to do to the conservative base of the Republican Party, as well as to the country, not long thereafter. Be that as it may, the President chose a VERY difficult fight, if for no other reason than how so many lives are touched in some way by "the health care system," and I don't just mean by the care or non care they get, but also how the "system" affects the economic interests of so many lives; thus, there are many "interest groups" involved in this very complicated system. Once the president made the decision, however, he could never really put into simple words what he wanted to do to this highly complex system. The reason is very simple: it is a highly complex system with many different interest groups. Let's see, did I already say that? A change that might benefit one group, might tick off another group. Republicans gleefully rubbed their hands together as they attacked, and sowed doubts about, the President's reform attempts.

Last summer I had to have some medical tests done and I was talking with one of the nurses. Actually two of the nurses were talking about the changes coming to the health care system and I chimed in, not that I have many opinions. To be honest, I really didn't express my opinions, rather I asked a couple of questions of the more talkative nurse, including what she thought should be done about "the system." She replied that she really didn't know, but that the reforms were not going to totally work, and that neither would "socialized medicine," citing Britain as her example.* She said our system was "corrupt"** and that it really needed to be completely overhauled, because it was so out of whack. She noted how there are so many interest groups involved and proceeded to make that point very clear, as she said in the socialized medicine system in Britain, nurses only make $11 an hour, and that she would never work for such a small salary,*** and I don't blame her, since we've heard so much how the wealthy have to make a gazillion bucks on most projects, or it isn't worth it to them, although cutting workers' wages and benefits is somehow supposed to inspire workers to work until they pretty much drop dead, less they be called "lazy" or "moochers." And people thought slavery was over.

* It is only to fair to note that Britain's medical system is highly supported by the public there, although there are also specific criticisms.

** I don't recall why, but I failed to have her explain what she meant by "corrupt," although you must remember, she and the other nurse weren't just sitting twiddling their thumbs, they were taking constant readings of my blood pressure, my heart rate, looking at screens and computers and other such things, sometimes requiring them to tell me I had to be still for a period, a difficult thing for me to do, except they successfully enforced it by telling me I wouldn't get a lollipop for good behavior, which made me clam up tighter than super wealthy employers when employees ask for a ten cent an hour raise.

*** For a regular 40 hour week that translates to a little less than $23,000 a year. I checked the $11 an hour figure for Britain, but I really could not confirm that amount, as for one thing, there are many classifications of nurses, with different salaries, but as I recall, the lowest figure I could find was something more like $14-$15, when calculated as an hourly rate, which, again based upon 40 hours a week, comes to about $29,000 to $31,000 annually. Again, just some caveats: I "assume" most nurses commonly work more than 40 hour weeks in Britain (and in many countries, including the U.S., for that matter). Further, I'm not certain how many nurses actually work for an "hourly" wage, but rather more likely under some salary guarantee, although I could be wrong. Then also, how many nurses, even as a percentage, actually make the lowest amount, I do not know, but I saw figures for some types of nurses which equated to annual incomes of more like $40,000-$60,000. As I recall, American nurses do seem to make a bit more, but not a great deal more, unless they are in the upper echelons. Also, where the nurse got the $11 an hour figure, I do not know; after all, I didn't exactly ask her for references, but I'm NOT saying she is wrong, but I didn't get the impression from my checking that British nurses "typically" make amounts less than the "14-$15" figure I mentioned above.

WORD HISTORY:
Well-This is the word generally used as an adverb meaning "in good condition, very satisfactory." I'll cover the noun/verb word of this spelling soon, as it is a different word. This word, closely related to "will" ("to wish, to desire"), goes back to Indo European "wel/wol," which had the idea of "desire, wish," which led to the extended meaning, "pleasing" (if you have desires/wishes, they are what "pleases" you). This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wela/wola," with the same general "desire, wish" meanings. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wel," which meant "very much, completely, abundantly," with the notion of "abundance, totality = being pleasing." Old English "wel" then became "wele," before the modern form. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "wohl,"  Low German has "woll,"  West Frisian "wol," Dutch "wel," Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic have "vel," and Swedish has "väl. All of these Germanic forms mean "well," but in both German and West Frisian the words also means "probably."

Conservatives Were Lucky

A few months ago on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," regular guest Jon Meacham, a respected author and editor, commented that "conservatives have won the argument" about cutting the budget, but while I have tremendous respect for Meacham, I must disagree, or at least "clarify," on his point, although it "appears" (or "appeared" at the time he made the statement) that conservatives have (had) won that argument. First, the conservatives, or more specifically the Republicans, were politically lucky that the economy took the dive it did in the waning months of the Bush administration. The worst political case for the Republicans was for them to win the 2008 election, especially with John McCain, a man many conservative true believers have detested for years, and still do. With polls still showing a majority of Americans, including about half of Republicans, hold George W. Bush responsible for the severe economic downturn, if Republicans had held the presidency and the Senate, I can't imagine it would have meant anything but a virtual obliteration of the Republican Party.* The policy of just letting things collapse until they could collapse no further would have been a recipe for their own destruction, if they dared to continue such policies. And some of the true believers would undoubtedly have continued to push such policies. Remember during the Gulf oil spill as the coast, the tourist industry and the seafood industry were devastated and disrupted, one Republican congressman publicly apologized to BP! Don't think the true believers ever "get it," they don't.

Huge deficits run during Bush's terms were forgotten by the conservatives, and even the nearly one and a half TRILLION dollar deficit inherited by Obama from Bush was then used AGAINST Obama.** As the economy began to right, the deficits also began to decline, although slowly. When deficit reduction was discussed, Republicans refused to consider any tax hikes to help lower the deficit. With responsible economists across the political spectrum saying that there needed to be some mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes, Republicans sat on their hands, refusing to raise taxes on the so called "job creators;" that is, the ultra rich, none of whom (see Word History, below) would have noticed the extra tax money missing from their monthly statements.***

When Obama defeated McCain, I have to believe some conservatives heaved a sigh of relief, as they then did not have to face the brunt of the economic plunge, nor its aftereffects. Instead they worked up a message that never mentioned any conservative involvement in the unfolding disaster. They quickly pivoted to place blame for the situation on the new President and Democrats. Although that message has not been totally successful, it did shore up the Republican/conservative base. When a couple of Republicans strayed from the ranch, they were lambasted for not standing firm with other Republicans.**** In the early going, the President correctly reached out to Republicans, even adding tax cuts to the actual stimulus plan to garner GOP votes, but it was virtually for naught, as Republicans, once so in favor of tax cuts, declared the cuts were not enough, and that they did not favor spending money directly to thwart the downward slide. Then a few months later, rightly or wrongly, President Obama gave the Republicans and conservatives a shot in the arm they could never have administered to themselves, health care. For about a year a titanic struggle played out day after day in front of an often disconnected American public, who thought the President had come to office to fix the economy. Some Republicans who had previously favored an "insurance mandate," quickly changed positions once Obama embraced their own basic plan. ***** Eventually the President won, but the cost was high, and his popularity has never totally recovered. Gleeful Republicans, then having been allowed to get back up off the floor, mounted an all out attack in the midterm elections, maiming Democrats across the country, and taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

So my point is, did conservatives win the argument? I say we don't really know, because they didn't have to face the music of the worst part of the economic downturn, and the economy still hasn't healed from the devastating blows it took. In other countries where cut backs have been put in place, economic growth has been slowing, and in fact this slowing could have a serious impact on our own economy. Some conservative governments in these countries have either been voted out (France), or have taken major hits in recent elections (Germany). To me, the verdict is still out, although most Democrats and most progressives agree that the deficit must be brought down, albeit gradually, something many have been saying independently from Republican demands of more immediate reductions.******

* Don't cheer too loudly Democrats. Some other party would have replaced it, or it would have survived on life-support, as there is always a counterbalance that eventually comes into play. And that is not a bad thing, although I can hear the names I'm being called for writing that.

** To be fair, the initial inherited deficit was increased slightly by certain stimulus spending, added after Obama took office, but the main deficit had been passed to him by the previous administration. The stimulus bill passed by Congress and signed by the President had spending spread over a couple of years, not concentrated in one year. Further, with the economy in headlong retreat, shrinking revenues only made things worse. I told you conservatives were lucky not to have won the 2008 election.

*** The "Bush tax cuts," as they have come to be called, cut taxes substantially on incomes in the top 2 to 2.5 %. The "bottom" of that bracket involves incomes of about $250,000 per year. While most of us would love to earn that much, that amount in itself doesn't necessarily make one wealthy. Myself, I did NOT support raising taxes on this income group. A debate raged at the time within Democratic circles over the income level higher taxes should start. Some suggested $500,000, others suggested one million dollars, something I DID support and still do! While much fuss was made by both sides, the taxes on upper incomes would have only increased about 3 1/2%, although you'd have thought from Republican rhetoric that Democrats were out to confiscate upwards of 100% from millionaires and billionaires.

**** Beleaguered and battered Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector even switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

***** The basic idea was that if everyone, or virtually everyone, was going to be covered by a national plan, then everyone would have to purchase insurance. Insurance is based upon a "pool" of insured; that is, paying customers. In spite of the largely successful Republican rhetoric about "a government take over of health care," Obama supported free market insurance companies to insure Americans. Yes, the government would require people with preexisting conditions be covered, but it would also require that people buy insurance (or have company offered insurance), with extensive subsidies provided to lower and middle income people to help with the purchase of such insurance. The conservative policy group, the Heritage Foundation, was one of those conservative groups IN FAVOR of such a basic plan just a few years ago; in fact, I believe they PROPOSED IT. Other supporters of this approach were none other than Mitt Romney when he helped get statewide insurance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House. The idea is, if everyone is insured, including people with preexisting conditions, the "pool" has to be large enough to cover those people. This is just for example, but let's say you work for a company with 100 employees and you have hornswoggle of the big toe. Don't ask me what that is, I may tell you. The insurance company may not want to cover you, as you are higher risk, or let's say they agree to cover you for like $20,000 a year (ah, like I said, they don't want to cover you). If they can get the other 99 employees (let's say they are basically healthy) to buy insurance, they can lower the cost to you and the others to something much more reasonable, as the risk has been spread out.

****** Generally polls have shown deficit reduction much further down the agenda of most Americans. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it does not support the notion that conservatives have won the deficit argument.

WORD HISTORY:
Who/Whom-This common pronoun goes back to Indo European "qwos/qwes," with several related meanings, but basically "who." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "(k)hwas/(k)waz," again with several related meanings, one of which was "who." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which later became modern English "who," and the "wh" was pronounced, but has obviously since been lost, but that's the reason for the modern spelling. "Whom" is the dative form of "who;" that is, for the object of a sentence or phrase, but its usage has slowly been in decline, as to many English speaking people, perhaps more so Americans, using "whom" seems a bit "high-style," or awkward; so we tend to say, "Who did I gave the book to?" Not the technically correct "To whom did I give the book?" Anyway, "whom" in Old English was "hwam." Various forms are common in the other Germanic languages, but as I noted in the Old Germanic (and Indo European) word, the basic word had several meanings (like "how" and "that" and others) which have come down to modern times in various forms in the Germanic languages. Standard German has three forms, not counting the genitive (possessive) form (I've mentioned before that German retains much of the complex Germanic grammar of old that was gradually simplified by its cousin, English): "wer," "wen" (accusative form), "wem" (dative form); Low German also has "wer" and "wem," and some dialects have "wäm" for "whom;" West Frisian has "wa;" Dutch has "wie;" Norwegian has "hvem;" Icelandic has "hver;" Danish has "hvo" and "hvem,"and Swedish has "vem."

Obama & FDR

I first published this on October 26, 2010, so please bear that in mind. I'm republishing the article as it was then, with no updates, as it actually would require extensive editing now, because of the time that has now passed and the fact that we know the results of the 2010 election, which were held about a week AFTER this article was published. People in both parties can have short memories, often when they want to, but this should refresh some memories. I know many like the "Word History" segment, but be aware, this is the same "Word History," too.  By the way, I've left the original article in place also, as there was a comment by a reader. For anyone interested, I'll put the link to the original Oct. 26, 2010 posting below the notes and above the Word History further down  the page. Here is the article:

I think it is safe to say that all presidents get compared to other presidents or to other historical figures, sometimes favorably and sometimes not so favorably. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, many Americans had high hopes about what he would accomplish. Some people compared him to Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka, "FDR"), especially since Obama was entering office at a time of serious economic trouble. The high hopes were probably unrealistic, and the comparison with FDR was just too premature, and no two eras are ever exactly the same.

For those unaware, FDR, a Democrat, was elected in November 1932, ousting the incumbent Republican, Herbert Hoover, who was beleaguered by his failure to halt, let alone reverse, the Great Depression. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by substantial majorities.* FDR took office on March 4, 1933.** Obama, a Democrat, took office January 20, 2009. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, with the Senate alignment similar to FDR's time, but with it being slightly less favorable for Obama, particularly because of the required 60 votes needed to pass most legislation, due to a more modern deal worked out between the two parties a while back on Senate rules. The House alignment was somewhat less favorable than during FDR's time, although not usually affecting the outcomes of key votes (see Note #1 below regarding House rules on bill passage). In fairness to Obama, Republican members of Congress had been so decimated in the previous two elections (2006 & 2008), that the "survivors" tended to be VERY conservative, coming from solid Republican districts or states, with a few exceptions, and therefore unwilling to compromise much on anything. Unlike the President, who has been blasted by conservatives as "radical," and by progressives as "too moderate;" thus getting little, if any, political credit, the congressional Republicans' hard line stance has earned them the cheers of their conservative base, a base now so energized for the upcoming election, that Democrats, now the unmotivated party, may lose seats in Congress in historic numbers, even though polls show the American public dislikes Republicans even more than they do Democrats!

Okay, so what is the difference between FDR's time and Obama's early time in office? First, and most importantly, FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of Hoover's failure to stem the developing economic depression. Hoover tried new ideas and traditional ideas, but the economic storm got worse,*** with millions out of work, and millions more reduced to part time. Not only did FDR and Democrats win big in the 1932 election, but Republicans were so discredited, that mounting major opposition to FDR was not easily done (he DID face opposition from various conservative factions, including the extreme right wing, and from conservative elements within the Democratic Party, primarily from some Southerners, who in those times, were Democrats). But the country wanted change, and the Great Depression era was a watershed, with many working class and middle class Americans so terrified and traumatized by the economic mess, that they were willing to forget ideology and support new ideas (unemployment reached a high of about 25%, but many other Americans had reduced work schedules, making the "effective" unemployment rate somewhere between 30 and 40%). Roosevelt and Democratic leaders rushed through legislation to try to change the psychology of the country. All did not pass easily, and it was not a "tea party" for FDR (ah...maybe I should change that line?), but gradually the tide was turned against the downward spiral; however, the struggle to repair the severely damaged economy took a decade, and unfortunately, it took World War Two to bring the U.S. back fully.

Unlike FDR, Obama took office only about a year after the actual recession began, and only MONTHS after the financial meltdown and the (2008) Wall Street crash began. In this case, he was more in the position of Herbert Hoover, than FDR. Hoover assumed the presidency only a couple of months before the economy went into recession, and less than seven months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. With many structural problems in the American economy, there wasn't a hell of a lot he, or anyone, could do to halt the initial downturn, at least in the sense of what was considered proper government involvement back in 1929, which was essentially "no involvement." In this sense, Obama had more of the FDR situation on his side. Hoover, who believed in deficit spending to limit economic downturns, was, however, limited in that action by the political considerations of that time (and his own limitations), including those of his VERY conservative Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, who believed in balanced budgets, pretty much regardless of circumstance. Americans just didn't accept big government deficits in peace time, and major government involvement in the economy was a "no no," at least during the early part of the "Depression." Hoover's more activist programs, and especially FDR's major activism, paved the way for future presidents, including Obama, to take action against economic downturns, although, as we have witnessed in the last couple of years, many hard line Republican members of Congress have opposed virtually ANY intervention into the economy, including those interventions proposed by President Bush. The economic stimulus package passed by Congress in early 2009 and signed by Obama, helped keep the country from going over the cliff, but the President needed to take charge, and not farm out the work to Congress. The stimulus probably should have been bigger, and with MUCH more job-creating infrastructure programs. (Note****) & (Note ^)

Lastly, unlike Hoover, FDR was a politician of the first magnitude (and he had a superb political adviser in Louie Howe). He had a "feel" for what the public wanted and how far he could go on policies, especially early on. He had no qualms about blasting business and wealthy interests (virtually all men, back then), and in fact, he seems to have relished their nasty comments about him, which only served to bring additional scorn to these interests from a substantial part of the American public. Obama, on the other hand, never really took charge politically. As a result, he has had the worst of all political worlds; being called a "socialist," "fascist," or "communist" by right wingers (and those may be the "nice" terms they've used about him), but seen by his base supporters as being too timid, and seemingly unwilling to challenge the "laissez faire," "business is always right," "let's all be concerned about the plight of millionaires," "if you're not rich, the hell with you, you're on your own," system that has evolved during the conservative era we've been in. He chose to do "health care reform" almost from the start (which showed poor judgment, and poor political instincts, in my opinion, although I understand the moral argument, trust me), but then he refused to really do battle over essential cost controls (like the "public option"), or even to try to change the very insurance system itself; instead continuing with the same employer-based system that business people, even when Bush was president, complained has limited their abilities to compete with foreign countries, ALL OF WHICH HAVE SOME SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! Further, it retains a layer of costs, insurance company profits, to the overall system. Once he chose this battle however; he couldn't get out, as this would have weakened his overall position. The resulting year long battle played out in front of the television cameras on a daily basis. All the while Americans wondered who was minding the economic ship, as the captain they elected for the job was now at the helm of a different ship. Previously demoralized Republicans and their business allies went on the attack, and the President's ambitious agenda played right into what they began telling Americans; "The President and congressional Democrats are overreaching, and they're going to tax the hell out of you," "The health care bill will create 'death panels' to decide if elderly people will get expensive treatments for certain ailments, or be left to die," "The Democrats are spending trillions and they are bankrupting the country." While many of the attack lines were totally ridiculous, unlike the President, the conservative Republican machine was not the least bit squeamish about seizing the political initiative, using vast hyperbole, or letting little things, like facts, get in the way of their assault, including the fact that the country had been running budget deficits ("bankrupting the country") under Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan took office, and that the 2009 deficit was almost entirely inherited by Obama from President Bush. The President and the overall White House seemed absolutely overwhelmed by, and unprepared for, the attacks. With such a complex subject, the President and his supporters were unable to ever articulate a concise reason why Americans should support the health care bill, or why this divisive legislation was needed "right now." Polls showed a solid majority of Americans opposed to the measure. In the end, progressives, fearful of the consequences of a major legislative defeat for the President, rallied to the bill's support, even though it was not anywhere near what most of them wanted. A very limited (in my opinion, but it does have some good things in it) bill passed, but the President and congressional Democrats took an absolute pounding, and they have never recovered. The bill was so poorly crafted, that after a year of bruising, almost bare-knuckled brawling, most Democrats running in this year's midterm elections never bring up the health care law, unwilling to cite it as an achievement. On the other side, a number of Republican candidates are calling for repeal of the law, or at least parts of it, or of essentially killing parts of the law by not funding them, if Republicans take control of Congress.

Unlike FDR, this President seems to lack that feel for politics, especially needed in the age of 24/7 news coverage, where virtually everything makes it to some news outlet, be it on television, or on the Internet. Some sort of "pension-type" program for elderly Americans was a priority for many progressives (in both parties) in FDR's time, but he didn't just wade into that battle right off. He built overall political support for himself and Democrats first, by dealing with the economy, which was THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, then later he pushed for the establishment of "Social Security," with even a good number of Republicans voting for the measure. President Obama, like with the "stimulus," farmed out the health care bill to Congress, unwilling, or unable, to even take charge of his own political party.

(A Word History is below the extensive notes)

* Democrats controlled the Senate initially 59 to 36, with one "Farm-Labor" senator, who was really a Democrat (The "Farm-Labor Party" was in Minnesota"), so the Dems had a majority of 60 to 36, and that number varied from time to time due to deaths or appointments to other offices, but essentially it was 60-36. Remember, in those days there were only 48 states, not the 50 of today; thus there were 96 senators. In the House of Representatives, which as today had 435 seats, the Dems were overwhelmingly the majority, essentially having a 316 to 117 superiority, with 2 vacancies (the Dem number includes Farm-Labor members). The number of vacancies frequently changed during this period (not an uncommon occurrence) and the alignment therefore changed periodically, but not all that drastically. It is important to remember, the rules of the House of Representatives requires only a simply majority vote to pass legislation; so, on any given issue, a bill only needs to have one more "yes" vote, than "no" votes, for passage. Remember too, even if a bill passes the House, it must also pass the Senate in the same exact form, and then be signed into law (with some exceptions) by the President to actually become law. Unlike today, there was much more bipartisanship in FDR's time, and it was not uncommon for some Republicans to support legislation backed by FDR, just as it was not uncommon for some Democrats to oppose his legislation, but it was a totally different era, when the two major political parties both had large numbers of conservatives and progressives.

** Up to that time, presidents were inaugurated on March 4, not January 20, as they are today. The 1933 presidential inauguration, however, was the last held on March 4, as the time between the election in early November and the inauguration (if for a new president) was considered to be too long. When the Constitution was first ratified, the four month period between elections and inauguration was much more necessary, as, for one thing, travel and communication could take quite some time back then (horseback and carriage were the main means of transport and communication), and a new president also had to assemble his staff and make cabinet appointments, also with communication and travel time having to be considered. Then when Lincoln was elected, southern states began to secede from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office. With the new president not yet in office, and likewise with the new Congress, the situation took the course that it did (maybe it would have anyway, but we'll never know). The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the date to January 20, was ratified in January of 1933, but did not take effect until October 1933; thus FDR's March 4th swearing in. Almost as if to make a point, the time between FDR's election and his taking office saw a major banking crisis develop in the country, with hundreds of banks either failing, or being on the brink of failure. I wonder now if American conservatives, if they do indeed win big in the 2010 midterm elections, will try to go back to the March 4th date? After all, we continually hear from some of them that the Constitution is the Constitution, and that liberals and Democrats are always trying to change it. It says what it means and means what it says, damn it! (Oops, they probably say "darn it," fearful that a bolt of lightening will hit them otherwise.)

*** If interested, I did a whole series on "The Great Depression." You can access the series by clicking on "The Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of this article. That will take you to all articles where I've done something on the "Depression." Scroll down until you come to those on the "Great Depression," which will be listed from last to first. You probably should read them in order, so just scroll to "Part One."

**** To be fair here, while I often disagreed with President George W. Bush and his administration on economic matters, my ego is not so fragile that I can't give credit to Bush and others in his economic circle to what they (finally) did right. While VERY unpopular, even with many Republicans, what came to be known as "the bank bailouts" was essential to preventing a total collapse of the American economy. It should have had "conditions" for the banks to meet in order to get the money, but it helped the country, and a good sum has been paid back to U.S. taxpayers, with interest, although there is an overall outstanding balance due. Obama and his economic team continued and expanded certain aspects of the basic policy, although now, many Republicans barely, if ever, acknowledge that it was Republican Bush who started the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, and auto companies. The argument that the Bush Administration should have enforced existing regulations more and taken measures to avert disaster is something I totally agree with. Their reliance on "free markets" to police themselves was total nonsense, and the notion, "let everyone do whatever they want to do, especially business people; after all, it's a free country," has brought us to the point where we are today.

^ Even though "stimulus" jobs would have, by nature, been limited by time, when Americans are working, they pay taxes. Taxes, in spite of this conservative nonsense that has been spouted for decades, do reduce deficits. So the investment would have had some payback, plus, it would have instilled far more confidence that the economy would steadily recover, something that is now lacking. The recent financial crisis in Europe hasn't helped matters here, though, and there's no question it has hampered the American recovery, as banks and businesses seemingly drew back. A larger stimulus, with more jobs, might have been able to supersede the European crisis in the overall psychology about the economy, but who knows?

LINK to original October 26, 2010 article:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-fdr.html

WORD HISTORY:
Riddle-There are two distinct words, but with the same spelling. (1) The noun meaning "puzzle, mystery," goes back to the Indo European root "ar," which seems to have had something of a reverse form variant, "re," with the general notion of "fit together." (To solve a "riddle," we need to "fit together" clues.) This root gave Old Germanic "raedislijan," with the general meaning "advise, counsel" (it is also the ancestor of "read" and "rede," this being archaic, but meaning "advise, counsel"). This then gave Old English "raedels/raedelse," with meanings "counsel, conjecture, imagination, riddle." Later, the spelling changed to "redel/redels," before settling on the modern spelling. Close relatives are: German has "Rätsel," meaning "riddle, puzzle;" Dutch has "raadsel," with the same meaning.

Riddle (2)-meaning "fill with holes, perforate," as when a gunslinger warned, "I'm goin' ta riddle yer hide." Actually, the past tense usage is more common, "riddled." This goes back to Indo European "krei," which had the notion of "separating out, distinguishing between," which then gave the Old Germanic offshoot "khridan," and the variant "hridan," where the "k" sound was not present; this meant "sieve, sift" which retained the original notion of "separate" (This may initially have come from the related Old Germanic form "(k)hrid," which meant "to shake," presumably with the notion that when you "shake" something, it separates items, as when you "shake the dust off of your clothes). This gave Old English "hriddel," also meaning "sieve." Later the spelling changed to "ridelle" (and "ridelen," the verb form, "to sift"), before eventually moving to the modern spelling. German has "Reiter," also meaning "sieve," but it is not commonly used anymore, to my knowledge, although perhaps in some dialects. A variant of the Old Germanic word, however, eventually evolved into modern German "rein," which means "pure, clean" (again, "possibly" with the idea of "shaking" something clean, or perhaps "filtering/sifting" something until "pure"). The other Germanic languages all have some form of this word with the same basic meaning, however, at this time, I have not been able to find a related word in English.