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. 

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

"The Chickens Come Home To Roost-George W. Bush's Second Term," Part 2

George W. Bush chose 3 nominees for the United State Supreme Court, although one of those, Harriet Miers, withdrew. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito were confirmed, with opposition, by the U.S. Senate.*

In the late summer of 2005, a major hurricane, named Katrina, struck the U.S. Gulf coast. President Bush and his administration were slow to respond to what became a major crisis, as state and local governments struggled to accommodate those displaced by the violent storm, as well as to clean up the immense destruction caused by Katrina. Photos and videos of people begging for help from rooftops in flooded areas struck a raw nerve with many Americans, as they turned on the president and the conservative philosophy of people needing to do more to help themselves. The reports about the clean up and the overall catastrophe went on for months.

George W. Bush also tried to reform the immigration system, including what was termed, "a path to citizenship," but hard line conservatives opposed the measure, and it did not pass, in two separate attempts.

The war in Iraq continued, with the president sending more troops, a part of a "surge." When the surge helped to cut some of the violence in Iraq, President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al Maliki, made an agreement with the goal of the withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. During President Bush's entire second term, the debate over the use of torture to obtain information from prisoners came under intense fire at home and abroad. Further, responsibility for the faulty information used to get the U.S. into Iraq in the first place was front and foremost in the minds of many. The drumbeat had ceased to be the one leading to war, but rather one wanting answers and accountability for the previous drumbeat TO war.

Oil and gasoline prices surged ahead to new records, with the president and Republicans saying it was "just the free market at work." More and more another statistic began to be heard in economic reports... FORECLOSURES, as the numbers for such continued to escalate. The banking system began to show signs of strain (I'll cover the financial crisis in the next segment) and the president and congressional Democrats (Democrats controlled Congress after the 2006 election) worked together to get a tax rebate totaling about 150 billion dollars. As speculation in the oil and gas markets drove prices ever higher, I recall one analyst saying how a significant part of the tax rebate would go into the pockets of big time speculators. Ahh, c'mon, now. You don't think those greedy, no good bastards would do that, do you? After all, the Bush administration said it was "free markets." I guess pickpockets could claim the same thing... free markets.

Another sign of the free markets was showing..... tremendous stress on the Republican coalition.

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

* Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired and then Chief Justice William Rehnquist died; thus the two Supreme Court vacancies. 

WORD HISTORY:
Term-This word, distantly related to "through," goes back to the Indo European root "terh," which had the idea of, "pass through, pass beyond," which then produced the extended "termen," which had the notion, "limit, boundary." This gave Latin "terminus," which meant, "boundary or limit:  geographically, time wise, contract wise;" thus also, "a word or expression." This gave Latin-based Old French "terme," and this was borrowed into English, circa 1200, initially with the ending "e."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Does Your Income Compare?

I first published this in early 2007, but it is even more relevant now, as this was BEFORE the economic meltdown. Updated to include a "Word History" on November 29, 2014. I also simply added a paragraph, almost intact, from another article from back then, as it fit perfectly with this subject. At that time George W. Bush was President. 

A couple of things caught my attention regarding recent reports on income in America. First, the CEO of Home Depot is leaving. He is getting a severance package worth 210 million dollars!!! From my understanding, he's being given the boot for the company NOT doing as well under his leadership. What would he have gotten if he had left the company having done a GOOD job?

Then, on the radio, I heard this info, but I don't believe a source was cited:
The average pay of an American CEO of a company with at least a billion dollars a year in sales is about $44,000 per day (rounded off ... thank God!). The average pay for American workers is around $35,000 per year. Please draw your own conclusions.

President George W. Bush recently said in an interview that corporate boards need to be more vigilant in oversight of CEO pay and benefits. The reaction has been that last week, one Wall Street company paid it's CEO $40 million (as Jethro Bodine, of the Beverly Hillbillies would say, "That's 40 comma... naught... naught... naught...comma...naught...naught...naught"). As if to further prove a point, this week, another Wall Street company paid it's CEO more than $50 million. I'm glad these companies have followed the President's advice. (Generally gleaned from CNBC, December 2006)

WORD HISTORY:
Ween-This is NOT the same word as "wean," which means, "to get used to, get accustomed to, to gradually become independent of," but they are distantly related from long ago. English has a noun and verb form of this word, although both have unfortunately become archaic, but you never know when words may make a comeback, or when you may encounter old forms in poetry or old writings. "Ween" goes back to Indo European "wen," which had the notion of "to wish, to desire, to strive for, to expect." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wenjanan," which had the meanings "to hope, to imagine, to expect." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wenan," with the same general meanings, but also with the notion behind these meanings of "to believe unrealistically, have unreal expectations." This then became "wenen," before "ween" became the standard form. Old Germanic also had the noun form "wenaz," which meant "an expectation, a hope." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wena/wen," with the same meanings, but also "incorrect expectation, false hope." This then became "wene," before "ween" became the standard. Forms of "ween" in the other Germanic languages have suffered a decline in usage too, except: German has the verb "wähnen" (to falsely imagine) in limited use, and the much more common noun "Wahn" (delusion, mania), Dutch has the limited use verb "wanen" (to falsely imagine) and the noun "waan" (delusion). Low German Saxon has "wahn," an adverb meaning "angry," which goes to a state of mind, too.    

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

George W. Bush and Social Security

Upon entering his second term, George W. Bush chose to pursue changes to Social Security, an idea he had mentioned early in his first term. The Social Security issue was and is complex and this won't be a recounting of the whole system and the proposals for change. If you are interested in this subject, please check your local library for more detail.

There were various proposals made about Social Security, but essentially Bush proposed allowing individuals to invest a small percentage of their Social Security contributions in private investments of some type (generally stocks and/or bonds). The idea was that each American would then have a private account with their own retirement funds.* There were two major problems with this: one, the money used for these investments would be diverted from the existing Social Security system, thus depriving the system of that income. Two, stocks and bonds fluctuate in value, and this fluctuation, as well as the knowledge needed "to try to make" wise investments, added a definite risk to each person's account. If you were "lucky," and your investments turned out well, you would have more money than someone whose investments were less profitable, and likely far more than someone whose investments went "sour." ** With less money going into Social Security, how much damage would that mean to the system? If Social Security payment amounts to individuals were reduced and your "investments" had gone "sour," what kind of "security" did this provide for you at the most vulnerable part of your life, old age? Social Security isn't perfect, but it invests in special government (and very, very low risk) bonds, which earns the fund interest.

In 1935, the Social Security law was passed by large majorities in both houses of Congress, with a large percentage of Republicans voting "yes," and it was then signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. As the years passed, more and more conservative opposition to Social Security mounted until, in the 1964 election, conservative Republican Barry Goldwater,*** the GOP presidential candidate, espoused making Social Security voluntary. Because Democrats and FDR had led the campaign to get Social Security enacted, the American public tended to give Democrats the credit for the law, something which continues pretty much to this day, although conservative opposition to the law has helped the public decide which side is in their favor.

While Bush's proposal would have had individuals investing in stocks and bonds, Wall Street investment banks and stockbrokers nationwide would have seen new streams of money from these investments.**** The public heard Bush's proposal and it essentially fell like a dud, and the President eventually gave up on actively promoting the plan. This Social Security non-starter, as well as the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting oil and gasoline prices, and the loss of jobs to technology and to low wage countries, all tugged mightily to drag down George W. Bush.  

* Many Americans "may" believe they have a bank account type Social Security account in Washington D.C., complete with funds being held in that account. This is not true. Social Security is a "pay as you go" system, with relatively recent revenue (how recent has varied over the years) being paid out to current recipients.

** This is simply how private investment goes, and to be honest, some people study all sorts of information about investing, hoping to do well, but they get "burned," because there is risk, even considerable risk, in any such investments. "Knowing how to invest" is not an exact science, and there are no guarantees, although it can be helpful, in my opinion. On the other hand, someone little versed in investments may score big, purely by luck, and luck is certainly a factor in investments. Roulette anyone? Having done a bit of betting on horse and dog racing earlier in my life, I can tell you how some people had all kinds of formulas and used all sorts of info to figure out how to make a bundle with their "educated bets." The thing was, not a one of these people ever made enough to vacation on the Riviera, or to even travel much more than about fifty miles away. I actually ended up ahead of the game over those years, but not all that significantly, although I once picked the winner in five straight races, and I didn't have a formula.

*** I say, "conservative Republican," because in those days, the two political parties were mixtures of progressives, moderates and conservatives.

**** I've noted here in some articles over the years, how my father, who was a staunch Republican, supported Republican ideas about voluntary Social Security and private investment of funds (Bush's plan was not really all that new). My dad supported these ideas, that is, until he retired, at which time he saw how necessary Social Security was to so many people, including to himself and to my mother, who had worked for a good part of her life, thus earning her a separate Social Security check. When the Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 election (taking office in early 1995), they began to press for changes to Social Security, which brought a scathing comment from my father that the Republicans and big business couldn't wait to get their hands on that Social Security money. My father was very good with numbers, as he had been both an auditor for an auto parts company and then the head of the credit union for his Steelworker local. It took his own retirement to see what his previous support for the Republican ideas had really meant.

WORD HISTORY:
Hearth-This word goes back to Indo European "ker," which meant "fire, heat." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "herthaz," which meant "fireplace, the ground used for fire." This gave Old English "heorth," meaning "fireplace, fire," and even, "home," apparently from the usage of the word for "indoor place for fire;" thus making it a symbol for one's home (this extended meaning was also in German). Later "heorth" became "herth," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German "Herd," which means 'hearth," but also transferred to the modern cooking device; thus "stove, range;" Low German "Heerd," also meaning "hearth/stove;" Dutch "haard," meaning "fireplace;" Swedish "härd," borrowed from Low German and meaning "hearth." I could not find a form in modern Frisian, but Frisian once had "herth," meaning "hearth, fireplace." Apparently forms of the word died out in the northern branch of Germanic, but Old Norse had "hyrr," meaning "fire," and as noted, Swedish borrowed the word from Low German, "perhaps" because Sweden was a military power in the 1600s and 1700s, and the Swedes occupied sections of northern Germany, which was Low German speaking, although trade between northern Germany and Sweden is also certainly a possibility.

Iraq and Humpty Dumpty

Humpty Dumpty comes from an English rhyme dating from at least the late 1700s. As I'm sure most people know, Humpty Dumpty was an egg sitting on a wall, and an egg is held together by a shell. A shell is generally fragile, and when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and broke, he could not be put back together again.

The area that "generally" is modern Iraq, Mesopotamia, has a prominent place in the story of mankind. Just briefly and superficially, modern Iraq had been part of the pre World War One "Ottoman Empire" of the Turks. The British fought the Turks there during World War One, when the Turks were allied with the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The victorious British controlled the area after the war until the early 1930s, when they granted independence to Iraq, which became a kingdom; that is, ruled by a king, and the monarchy was Sunni Muslim. A revolution in the late 1950s ended the monarchy and replaced it with several military leaders over the next few years. Another revolution in the late 1960s brought the Ba'ath Party to power, which eventually brought military leader Saddam Hussein to rule Iraq. As you can see, Iraq has not been an easy country to govern.

Iraq is an overwhelmingly Muslim country, with a relatively small Christian segment, but its Muslim population is divided between a Shia sect majority and a Sunni sect minority. Ethnically, Iraqis are heavily Arabic,* but with a regional Kurdish population in the majority in the far northern area of the country.**

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, and although he was a secular leader, religious division in Iraq was important, as was ethnic background, especially for the Kurdish population. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist, invaded neighboring Iran (an overwhelmingly Shia Muslim majority country), invaded and occupied neighboring Kuwait, and ruthlessly suppressed Kurdish attempts at independence. Saddam's occupation of Kuwait in 1990 brought large scale military action against his forces by an American led coalition, which included other Arab and Muslim nations. After his defeat and a ceasefire, there were uprisings in Kurdish and Shia areas of the country, but Hussein responded with military actions to successfully put down the insurrections and keep himself in power, although through the United Nations, "no fly zones" were set up, which prohibited Iraqi aircraft to fly in certain parts of the country, thus limiting attacks on certain groups. The ceasefire agreement ending the war imposed tough trade sanctions on Iraq and called for Iraq to destroy all chemical weapons and to abandon any attempt to develop nuclear weapons. U.N. inspectors were to verify compliance with the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and production facilities, as well as verify that there was no development of nuclear weapons. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minster Tony Blair launched air and missile strikes in the late 1990s on a number of targets in Iraq, as Saddam interfered with weapons' inspectors, accusing some inspectors of being spies for the U.S.  

Following the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the U.S. and its allies commenced military operations in Afghanistan to chase the ruling Taliban from power, along with Al Qaeda operatives and trainees, who had been given sanctuary there by the Taliban. President George W. Bush and members of his administration, most notably, Vice President Dick Cheney, then tied Saddam Hussein to the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11.*** With Saddam's interference with weapons' inspectors, the fear developed in the Bush administration and elsewhere, that Hussein was hiding various weapons and that he would get biological, chemical, and perhaps some type of nuclear weapon, all of these collectively known as "weapons of mass destruction, or 'WMD,' " into the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists. The administration began a concerted effort to present a case for war against Iraq to the American, and even the world, public. The 9/11 attacks had shaken not only the United States, but much of the world, as the attacks demonstrated the commitment of religious fanatics to wage war on those, even other Muslims, who did not share in their beliefs. This mindset led many Americans and others to assume the worst from the "evidence" provided by the Bush administration.**** Vice President Cheney assured Americans that invading forces would be greeted as liberators. (See NBC's "Meet The Press" for March 16, 2003)

The invasion of Iraq quickly toppled Saddam Hussein, who was found months later hiding in a hole outside his hometown of Tikrit. It didn't take long for the jubilation over Saddam's fall to turn to anger and despair, as the war ravaged country saw the emergence of armed religious factions and Al Qaeda groups fighting not only the occupying forces, but each other, creating a civil war type situation, with occupying forces and humanitarian personnel caught in the middle. Bombings and kidnappings became common, with many a terrible death attributed to both. So now there was an Iraq of Sunnis, an Iraq of Shia, and a northern region of Iraq of Kurds. All of this combined with an element of a nation unaccustomed to any form of democracy. Gradually "a general sense of order" came to be restored by the occupying forces, which also took to providing training for Iraqi police and military units, but periodic attacks on installations, occupying troops and Iraqi police and military units continued. A national election was held and a new Iraqi government, led by Shia Muslim Nouri al Maliki, as prime minister, was installed. With Iraq a majority Shia country, Sunnis feared exclusion in governing the country. The Kurds successfully secured regional self government, while remaining as a part of Iraq.***** With Americans growing increasingly disenchanted with American involvement (and mounting casualties) in Iraq, and with many Iraqis wanting to take full control of their country, President George W. Bush negotiated an agreement to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2011, which indeed took place.

Prime Minister Al Maliki has maintained close relations with neighboring Shia majority Iran, and his relations with other Middle Eastern nations is more sketchy, especially with those, like Saudi Arabia, which have a Sunni majority. Since the withdrawal of occupying forces, attacks on public places and on military and police installations have continued, seemingly more by some radical and militant Sunnis.****** More recently, "ISIS" ("Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"), a highly radical Sunni militia group and offshoot of Al Qaeda, has been advancing deep into Iraq from Syria, threatening the capital of Baghdad. This has brought a call to arms by Shia religious and public leaders to defend the city and to defeat ISIS, which, if reports are correct, and they certainly seem to be, has massacred untold numbers of Iraqis in the areas they have captured. In the north, the independent minded Kurds have a substantial army of their own to guard their territory, and their forces have generally been deemed to be much better than many of the Iraqi forces that have thus far faced ISIS. Many Iraqi units collapsed with barely a fight, and reports indicate that many men discarded their uniforms and threw away their weapons. The U.S. is in the process of sending about 300 "advisers" to Iraq to provide further training and such to Iraqis. To me, the idea that 300 men with such a task will have a major impact is ridiculous. "My guess" is, the men will act as "spotters" to call in American airstrikes (or missile strikes), if the President decides to so act.

Recent polls show that Americans now think the invasion of Iraq was not worth the cost. The problem is, the invasion, which found no weapons of mass destruction, may have toppled Saddam Hussein, but it also toppled the Humpty Dumpty of Iraq from his wall, and while the rhyme dates from the 1700s, no one has yet figured out how to put Humpty back together again. The situation is terrible, with few, if any, good options, but the sending of any major U.S. forces has so far been ruled out by the President and it seems even some typically bellicose members of Congress are reluctant to call for armed intervention, but we'll see, since if some had their way, the U.S. would have troops stationed in far more places around the world than we already do.

* The Arabic language is part of the Semitic family of languages, which includes Hebrew, among others.

** The Kurds are closely related to the Persians, and the Kurdish language (and its dialects) is Indo European, making it related to English, but further down the family tree.

*** For a little more on the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, see my article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_25.html

**** To be clear here, not all Americans were convinced by the administration provided "evidence," nor were the leaders of many other nations, as the military coalition assembled by George W. Bush was nowhere near the size of that put together by his father in 1990. "Generally," polls showed around 60% of Americans supported a war against Iraq with U.N.approval, but slightly less than 50% supported such a war without U.N. approval. (See prewar polls by Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/USA Today)

***** In theory, the Kurds had been granted a form of regional self rule by Saddam long before, but he never adhered to the agreement, instead using force against the Kurds. Such "semi-autonomous" setups are not unknown, as the long contested German majority areas of "Alsace-Lorraine" in France achieved such after World War Two, and likewise, as did the German majority area of South Tyrol in Italy after World War Two. In these cases, much self government was granted, which guaranteed the German language and cultural heritage of the regions, but the areas also remained a part of France and Italy, respectively, and the people were citizens of those respective nations. Finland too was a largely self governing grand duchy of the Russian Empire during the 1800s and up until 1917.

****** Just from news reports I've seen, not all Sunnis support ISIS, and indeed many fear ISIS, which has a reputation for atrocities, and has been imposing strict Islamic law in conquered areas. Americans take note! This is what can happen when super reactionary groups want to take a country far back in time.

WORD HISTORY:
Far-This word goes back to Indo European "per," which the notion of "beyond." Its Old Germanic offspring was "ferro," ^ which meant "beyond, further." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "feorr," which meant "distant, far, remote" (also used in terms of time), and this later became "far." The other Germanic languages have: German has "fern," Low German "feern," West Frisian "fier," Dutch "ver," Danish and Norwegian "fjern," Icelandic "fjar-," and Swedish "fjärr."

^ The Indo European "p" often became "f" in its Old Germanic offshoot.

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

"Medicare Prescription Benefit"

Before I move directly to George W. Bush's second term, I want to touch on the Medicare changes enacted in late 2003, which resulted in a great deal of prescription drug coverage being added to the program, but the law didn't fully take effect until 2006, during Bush's second term. The 2003 Medicare reform law pushed by President Bush had many complexities and not all prescriptions were covered under all circumstances. The bill was controversial on both sides of the aisle. While most Democrats had favored providing a prescription coverage element to Medicare for some time, they also generally charged the Bush proposed legislation gave too much power to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries,* and that it further pushed "a move toward privatization," ** with the Medicare Advantage segment. Hardline conservatives generally opposed any expansion of Medicare, citing the costs and the deficits being run in the federal budget. Prior to the congressional vote, the Bush administration released a projected cost of $400 billion dollars for the prescription plan over ten years, but within weeks of passage, the administration released a new cost projection of more than $500 billion over the same time period, especially bringing more criticism from conservatives. The final bill was passed and signed into law by President Bush. The vote in Congress: House of Representatives vote: 220 for (204 R-16 D) and 215 against (25 R-189 D- 1 I) and the Senate vote: 54 for (42 R-11 D-1 I) and 44 against (9 R-35D), 2 not voting (2-D).***

* The law prohibited Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, and the law required seniors to choose an insurance company or HMO for the prescription benefit, but that participation in the prescription program was purely by individual choice; that is, it was voluntary.

** Like with everything medical, changes to Medicare in 1997 were complex and to try to keep this as simple as possible, the law introduced "Medicare + Choice," which generally allowed seniors the option of having a private insurance company (or HMO) plan to cover their basic part of Medicare (hospital stays, physicians and outpatient tests and procedures), "plus" other coverage and pricing structures beyond those of traditional Medicare, but with Medicare paying a standard fee to the private companies for each senior. The insurance companies "could" charge seniors a monthly premium or higher copays for certain services, in addition to their premiums going directly to Medicare. The 2003 changes to Medicare brought prescription coverage to traditional Medicare, which the private plans usually already offered, which brought changes to how the private plans were to be compensated by Medicare. The "Medicare + Choice" program was renamed "Medicare Advantage." Critics of both the 1997 and 2003 changes argued that with seniors who were better off financially able to essentially pay for extra services outside of Medicare, that eventually only the poor and sickly seniors would be left in traditional Medicare, making them vulnerable to cuts in medical benefits, and perhaps an eventual abandonment of Medicare altogether by politicians, as healthier seniors and those with more financial means could actually save money and get better coverage by going to private plans. Remember, private companies have to make a profit and the easiest way to do so is to insure people who are healthier and thus "less likely" to use expensive medical services. Of course this was before the health care reforms of 2010.

*** Just a note: Later, Republicans Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum criticized "entitlements," but both voted "for" the Medicare expansion in 2003. Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who was no longer in Congress at that time, offered support for the legislation, later to join in the criticism of entitlements.    

WORD HISTORY:
Shave-This word goes back to Indo European "skahb," which meant "to scrape, to scratch." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skaban(an)," with the same meanings, which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sceafan/scafan," meaning "to shave, to scrape." These then became "shaven" (meaning "to shave"), before the modern version. Later the noun form, "a shave," was derived from the verb from the notion "something shaven" or "something shaved off." Both "shaven" and "shaved" are used for participle forms, with "shaven" especially used as an adjective, as in, "The witness said the man has a clean shaven face." "Shaved" is also the past tense form, shared with the now archaic "shove" (long "o"). By the way, English also once had the noun "scafa," which meant "plane;" that is, "tool for planing, shaving wood," but modern "shaver" "seems" to be derived or patterned after it. The other Germanic languages have: German "schaben" ("to scrape," "to plane," also somewhat less often, "to shave"), also the German noun "Schaber" ("scraper"); Dutch and Low German "schaven" ("to plane"); West Frisian "skave" ("to scrape, wear down"); Swedish "skava" ("to scrape"); Icelandic "skafa" ("to scrape"). Neither Danish nor Norwegian "seem" to use a form of the word in their standard modern languages.

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

The 2004 Election, Part Two

The Republicans faced little infighting going into the 2004 election, as President George W. Bush quickly obtained the necessary number of delegates fairly early on in the party's nominating process. At the Republican National Convention, held in New York City, the Bush-Cheney ticket was easily affirmed.

The Republicans centered their campaign around national security, which to them included the war in Iraq. There was comparatively little from Republicans about Afghanistan, although the successful chasing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from much of the country, except in the mountainous area on and over the border into Pakistan, was touted. Democrats countered that Bush had gotten the U.S. involved in Iraq over highly questionable and mistaken issues, while leaving the area where the terrorists had developed their plans to attack the U.S., Afghanistan, to wither as the administration committed troops and resources to pursue the mistaken war in Iraq. Republicans argued that Bush's steadfastness demonstrated American leadership and that Kerry was "a flip-flopper." John Kerry got himself into trouble by trying to explain his nuanced votes on the Iraq war and then on budget appropriations for the war in the Senate, providing Republicans with a powerful ad against the Senator.*

President Bush touted his work on education in cooperation with Democrat Ted Kennedy, but while Senator Kerry tried to shift the debate more to domestic affairs, the campaign remained centered around Iraq and terrorism, as well as on personal attacks on both candidates. Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard came into question,** but documents unfavorable to Bush aired by CBS were shown not to have been authenticated by the network, a matter which reinforced conservative arguments that the mainstream media could not be trusted. On the other side, Kerry's nomination had been thought by Democrats to mute the criticism that Democrats were anti-military, as Kerry was a decorated Vietnam veteran. Further, Democrats thought the decorated Kerry would be a great contrast to George W. Bush's controversial military service. This spawned the formation of a group that came to be generally known as "The Swift Boat Vets," who actively worked for Kerry's defeat by attacking his military record.*** The group, which included some men who served in or around Kerry in Vietnam, ran television ads, made public appearances and even published a book disputing virtually every aspect of Kerry's Vietnam record.**** Republican Senator John McCain condemned the "Swift Boat" attacks on Kerry, but President Bush and most other Republicans stood idly by, although they said they would not attack Kerry's record themselves. Kerry and his campaign launched no major counter to the Swift Boat allegations, something which exasperated Democrats.

Three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate were held during the campaign.

The election results showed Bush holding onto his coalition and garnering about three million more votes than Kerry, with Bush winning about 50 and 3/4 percent of the popular vote, to Kerry's 48 and a quarter percent of the vote. In the electoral vote, which is what matters, Bush won 286 votes to Kerry's 251 (one elector voted for Edwards separately for president), with 270 needed to win the presidency. Bush carried New Mexico by only about 4000 votes out of about 750,000 votes, as well as Iowa by about 6000 votes out of about 1.5 million votes, while Kerry won Wisconsin by only 16,000 votes out of about 3 million votes. Analysts generally credited Bush's win to superior identification of likely Bush voters and then the efforts to turnout those voters by his campaign, even though Bush's popularity had decreased considerably from his post 9/11 and early Iraq war numbers, which would have been difficult for any president to sustain. I know several people who voted for Bush who did so with little glee, although they still stuck with him, but the controversy over Iraq dampened enthusiasm. Iraq and other events would take a further toll on Bush's second term.

* In the fall of 2002, Senator Kerry had voted for giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. During votes on an appropriation for the war in 2003, the Senator voted for such an appropriation when the bill's language would have scaled back President Bush's tax cuts to pay for the appropriation. He then voted against the bill when that language was dropped.

** George W. Bush's military service had come under scrutiny as he entered politics in Texas, and then again in the 2000 election. Briefly, critics claimed his well connected father (a congressman back in the late 1960s) had been able to pull strings to get his son into the Texas Air National Guard, which kept his son stationed in Texas. As the U.S. then had a military draft, critics argued this allowed Bush to escape the draft, which "may" have then kept him from duty in Vietnam, where there were major American forces, and escalating casualties at that time. Critics charged George W. Bush's National Guard record did not merit his selection as a pilot and that his attendance and compliance with regulations was relatively poor.  

*** John Kerry served in South Vietnam in the late 1960s as a Navy commander of a "swift boat," a type of patrol boat. He was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam. He later became a leading critic of the war, even appearing in congressional hearings and leading public protests. One early 1970s' protest involved Kerry and many other veterans discarding their military decorations to protest the war. Kerry's antiwar stance in the 1970s also brought criticism from Republicans in 2004.

**** The Swift Boat controversy would require an article, or series of articles, to explain all of it, but while the group was technically not part of the Republican campaign, it received large sums from big Republican donors, like T. Boone Pickens, and some people tied to the group had clear Republican and Bush connections, including some back to the attacks on Senator John McCain in the 2000 Republican nomination battle. One man quit the group and told people he would vote for Kerry, later saying the group had unfairly distorted Kerry's record. Other former veterans who had served with or around Kerry vouched for his military service record. See the NY Times article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ei=5089&en=7158a80120f0ee5a&ex=1306468800

WORD HISTORY:
Hectic-This word goes back to Indo European "segh/sekh," which had the notion of "to hold, to hold onto." This gave Greek "ekhein," which meant "hold, continue to hold," which then produced Greek "hektikos," which meant "habitual, continuing," with the extended meaning "continuous fever." Latin borrowed the term as "hecticus," with the illness meaning, which passed into Latin-based Old French as "etik (later "etique"). English borrowed the word as "etik," but later, under the influence of Latin spelling, it became "hectic." The idea of "continuous fever," and the disorientation accompanying such, provided the meaning "do something at a hectic (feverish) pace." 

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

This is the link to "Part Thirty-Eight," for those needing it:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_25.html

"Combat Operations in Iraq Go On.. and On"

The initial phase of military operations in Iraq brought rapid success and Saddam Hussein became a wanted man as he fell from power. He was captured in late 2003 hiding in a hole in the general vicinity of the place of his birth. Months earlier, his sons had been killed in northern Iraq after being surrounded by U.S. Special Forces. Hussein was later turned over to Iraqi authorities for trial. He was found guilty of numerous crimes and he was hanged in late 2006.

After Hussein fell from power, the U.S. and its allies began the search for Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, as well as for evidence of his nuclear weapons program. As the search went on without success, the Bush-Cheney administration began to feel the pressure, as their credibility with Americans began to slide. The President and Vice President began to try to sell the idea that the war had still been a success, as it had removed a brutal dictator from power. All the while, various Iraqi groups, some connected to al Qaeda, others from religious factions, began attacks on the occupying military forces, on the developing Iraqi government and on each other, as Iraq descended into something of a civil war. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction and escalating American casualties saw support for the war erode, as Americans began to seriously question U.S. involvement in Iraq. President Bush would continue the war effort in Iraq until he left office in January 2009, but the divisiveness of the war made it difficult for him in an increasingly turbulent Congress. Was the Republican coalition breaking apart?

Next... "The Election of 2004"

WORD HISTORY:
On-This common preposition goes back to Indo European "ano," which meant "on." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ana," which meant "on, upon, at." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "an/on," with the same meanings. This later just became "on," where it has remained for centuries. The other Germanic languages have: German and Low German "an," with the "a" is pronounced like the "a" in "father," so very close to English "on" (it generally means "on," but also "at," just as its English cousin once did); Dutch "aan" (meaning "on, at, to"); West Frisian "oan" (meaning "at, to"); Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish "á" (meaning "on, at"), but it is also used in "på," a contraction of  "opp á," for "upon, on."

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 Creates Bipartisanship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

First published in July 2013


What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

Barack Obama has now been president for four and one half years. So what about him? What of the comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt, at least early on? I will be doing "at least" two parts to this evaluation of President Obama, a man we now know far more about now than we did in 2008, but we tend to learn more about any president after they've been in office for awhile. Chester Arthur became president upon the assassination of President James Garfield in the early 1880s.* Arthur had developed his political career through the (then) Republican political machine in New York.** To the surprise of both machine politicians and reformers alike, as president, Arthur pursued reform policies that went completely against his former support of the corrupt existing spoils system. While Barack Obama still has more than three years left in his second term, where is he now, and what did we get in 2008 and again in 2012?

First, it is important to remember, Barack Obama had a fast rise in American politics, with his first elected office being as a state senator in the Illinois State Senate in 1996, a position he retained until 2004, when he was elected by a large margin to the United States Senate from Illinois. He experienced one bump in the political road, that being a failed run for a congressional seat, when he was decisively defeated in the Democratic primary by the incumbent. He held his U.S. Senate seat until just after he was elected President of the United States in November 2008. Obama came to the presidency at a time when the country, and indeed the world, were reeling from a major economic downturn and financial crisis. Further, many Americans had grown weary, and downright skeptical, of the war in Iraq, as that war had overshadowed the war in Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden, the overall leader of Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda. More than anything, Americans were worried about the economy, which had been in a major plummet since the fall of 2008, complete with bank failures and skyrocketing unemployment. For my Republican friends who like to believe that without the economic collapse, John McCain may have won the 2008 election, I just want to say, "if" there hadn't been a Great Depression, Herbert Hoover likely would have won a second term. Anyway, here's my take on President Obama:

Due to the circumstances when he took office, President Obama was often compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, aka "FDR" (from here on, I'll use "FDR" when mentioning Roosevelt). First, it's never completely fair to compare presidents, because they never all have the same challenges nor the same circumstances during their time in office. FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of an economic collapse the likes of which the country had never seen. Unemployment was around 25%, there were many other workers on part time, and prices were falling, as major deflation gripped the nation. Further, when FDR took the oath of office, the country was in the midst of a major bank panic. FDR and his advisers had had those 3 1/2 years of the Great Depression to see how Herbert Hoover tried to deal with the collapse. FDR's advisers liked some of Hoover's programs and plans in general, but they did not like Hoover's limitations and implementations of his programs. They took many of Hoover's ideas, but they reformulated them to their own ways of thinking.

Barack Obama came to office as the economy was still plunging downward at an alarming rate. The recession which started in late 2007 had taken on ominous proportions in the fall of 2008, as the nation's banking and overall financial system, overwhelmed by massive numbers of bad mortgages, wavered and threatened to come crashing down; thus bringing about what later came to be called, "the Great Recession." Obama and his advisers didn't have quite the "luxury" of watching George W. Bush trying to deal with the collapsing economy on the scale that FDR had watched Hoover, but Obama did have an advantage unavailable to FDR ... HISTORY. The incoming Obama administration knew from the history of the Great Depression and the time thereafter how to try to stem an economic collapse. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also knew the history of the Great Depression, as he had made it a part of concentrated effort in his educational studies. The answer was ... SPENDING. While they knew the answer, the problem was, the Bush administration had run huge deficits for years; cutting taxes (especially for the wealthiest Americans), fighting wars, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and shoring up the security of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. As I noted, Bush cut taxes, and Americans were never asked to help pay for all of the the new spending during his two terms as president. In spite of Republican attempts to act as if the history of federal deficits began on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took office, George W. Bush bequeathed a federal deficit of more than a trillion and a third dollars to Obama on that day. This meant the Obama administration would have to TOTALLY borrow the money to combat the economic plunge the country was experiencing. The Bush administration initiated bailouts for the auto industry and major bailouts for the American banking industry, fearful it would collapse. The bank bailout law allocated a maximum of $700 billion.*** The auto bailouts were much smaller and were done to tide the companies over until the new administration came into office. For the banks, through other maneuvers in addition to the bailout law, the Federal Reserve provided trillions of dollars (I'm not sure we actually know to this day how many trillions). Bernanke, a Republican appointed to head the Federal Reserve by George W. Bush, advocated major spending by the federal government, at one point saying that the threat of deflation (generally falling prices such as happened during the Great Depression) had to be combated, even if money had to be dropped out of airplanes.

Here's the idea behind Bernanke's statement and the general idea of spending to combat an economic downturn. During the Great Depression so many Americans had little or no money, there was a lack of demand for goods and services, which only brought more layoffs and business failures; that is, a downward spiral. Government spending tried to make up some of the loss of purchasing power, but back then, this was all something of a new theory, and it took study of the lessons of the Great Depression to put the ideas into a more concrete plan of action for the future. As I mentioned earlier, Bernanke had done significant study of the Great Depression through much of his life and he used this knowledge to combat the Great Recession, along with support for the Obama administration's efforts, including up to the present about the federal budget. Some Republicans and business people screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in protest to the Bernanke and Obama anti-recession program, much like some Republicans, some conservative Democrats and business people screamed, shouted, and stomped their feet against FDR in the 1930s. In my opinion, the business-type ideas that have developed over the centuries and the idea that they can never be wrong has just been carried to extremes by some. Of course they screamed and shouted, and I'm sure many American bankers did the same, until THEY needed their asses bailed out. The idea is, to be quite honest, when Uncle Sam dispersed money during the Great Depression, the greediest of the greedy didn't have direct access to much of that money, as some went to provide public service jobs in a variety of ways, so they called it "wasteful," and .... they screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in a tantrum. Folks, they want YOUR MONEY! That's what all of this kind of stuff is about, including all the nonsense about privatizing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any government money. They want their cut! If you get help in some way from government, at whatever level, federal, state or local, they're pissed, because they didn't get their cut. Government can go around them and they don't like it.

President Obama kept and generally adhered to the bank bailout law, signed into law by President George W. Bush. Further, the Obama administration proposed a "stimulus package" of about $800 billion to inject money into the economy through tax cuts and public spending, and they got larger bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler in the auto industry. In return, Uncle Sam took stock in the auto companies, a move which brought cries of "socialism" from the political right, as if the sun would never shine again. As I type this, I can't look out the window, because the sunlight is too bright. Further, the auto companies agreed to reorganize, in part by a scale back in the number of vehicle models they had. Gradually the economic plunge began to slow and the economy stabilized, although it faced strong headwinds from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which shut down a fairly large sector of the economy, as first the spill and then the clean up proceeded. Republicans pounced, but I believe most Americans realized the oil spill had damaged not only the Gulf coast, but the entire American economy. At least I didn't hear Americans echoing what Republican Congressman Joe Barton said in a public hearing. The Congressman said that the deal reached between the Obama administration and BP for the oil giant to put $20 billion into a fund for compensation to victims of the disaster was a "shakedown" of BP by the White House and he apologized to BP for such!

The economy has continued to recover to this day, but the pace has been slow to steady, not overwhelming, and unemployment has gradually dropped into the mid 7% range. Part of the slow recovery, in my opinion at least, has had to do with the scale back of state and local governments hard hit by the recession and the corresponding revenue drop, at least until more recently. Private business began rehiring, albeit slowly, but simultaneously state and local governments cut payrolls, often making for something of a trade off. It's also important to remember, that while the Great Recession pales in comparison to the Great Depression of the 1930s, it took until about 1941 to fully recover from that depression, which started in 1929! Of course, if you've been out of work for a couple of years, it doesn't matter how much we compare our recent history with the 1930s, YOU'RE HURTING, and neither history nor statistics does anything for you. Another thing is, many American business people, always driven by the bottom line, prefer to invest in their business facilities in other countries. This is not a one way street, as American-made products are also sold to other countries, but when American companies choose to produce goods they once made here in overseas locations and then ship those products back here, it hurts! They also seem to keep money in banks outside of the U.S., so as not to have to pay taxes on it. Now you can say that's smart, but America continues to crumble, and while you might like some of those low prices you get for certain foreign made products, we'll see how well you like working for foreign wages. Eventually that's what's going to happen for many. Why do you think Romney didn't want to release much information on his income and taxes? Whether he did anything illegal, I can't say, but I'm sure it was because he knew how bad it would look. They always like their scamming the system to get tax breaks and such, until they have to face the American public, then they don't want you to know, because they know exactly what you're going to think, so they've got to hide it from you.

So on combating the Great Recession, I'd give President Obama a "B+," but there are other things tied to the economy I'll be covering in the next installment and his grade may not be so high.  

* President Garfield was born in what was to later become suburban Cleveland, Ohio. He is buried in Cleveland at Lake View Cemetery, located by the Little Italy neighborhood in the general area of the University Circle section of town. For those interested: http://www.universitycircle.org/

** Both parties had political machines in New York and elsewhere, so this was not just Republicans.

*** All of the 700 billion was not dispersed to financial institutions, and Congress (Democrats then controlled both houses) and the Obama administration lowered the total amount to $475 billion from the $700 billion. The U.S. Treasury reports on the money to Congress, and the report from earlier this year indicates that only $418 billion was actually dispersed, and that the Treasury has received $405 billion in return, leaving a relatively small balance yet owed. The "incoming" money has come from a variety of sources, including dividends and interest, but the biggest amount by far has come from companies paying back the money they received. The auto industry got about $80 billion total and currently about $51 billion has been returned to the Treasury. 

WORD HISTORY:
Pimento-This is a really interesting word. Watch how and why the meanings evolved over time. This word goes back to Indo European "peig/peikh," which meant "to cut, to carve," the notion of which led to "to carve decorations into an object." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "pingere," and the idea of "decorate or adorn" broadened further into "decorate with color;" thus came the meaning, "to paint." This then spawned the Latin noun "pigmentum," which meant "color, paint," but also later it took the meaning "vegetable juice," because of the bright color of the juice. Vegetable juice was often added to foods for color and flavor, and  Spanish, a Latin-based language, had its version of the word as "pimenton," which made the "vegetable juice" meaning into the more specific "red pepper," but this later broadened into "sweet peppers of any color." The idea of using peppers to season food also gave Spanish "pimienta," to mean "black pepper." English borrowed the word from Spanish in the late 1600s or early 1700s, likely from of the islands in the Caribbean, as the word meant both "red sweet pepper" (the vegetable), but also "tropical dried berry used as a spice" ("allspice," so called in English because of its seeming blend of spice flavors). German also borrowed the word, but from French, as "Piment," and it's the German word for "allspice."

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.