Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Put em on the Bus

Put ‘em on the Bus


By Richard E. Noble

Compassion for the poor in the U.S. is a waste of time. Americans do not believe that there are poor, hungry people in America.

My wife doesn’t believe in poverty: my wife who needs, at the most recent estimate, seven thousand dollars worth of dental work; my wife who hasn’t been to a beauty parlor in at least thirty years; my wife who buys her clothes and furniture at the Goodwill; my wife who has traveled, along with her husband, all over the United States picking fruits and vegetables, living under bridges and equipment shelters, washing dishes in crummy restaurants, sweeping floors and working as a transient laborer the majority of her life; my wife who at best can qualify for a minimum wage job anywhere in America; my wife who was once keeping index cards for a cook book which she had tentatively entitled, “One Hundred Different Ways to Cook Chicken Necks”; my wife who, if she happens to get sick tomorrow can look forward to a cot in the corridor at the local hospital because we have no health insurance and throughout our entire working careers never, ever have had any health insurance; my wife who can’t even join in the country song … “A big old brew, my double-wide and you” because the best that we have ever been able to afford is a single-wide; my wife who called the property appraiser’s office last week because our property evaluation went ‘up’ to eleven dollars and thirty-six cents; my wife who recently received a call from a mortgage company who said that if we owned our own property, they would refinance our property, site unseen, for 100,000 - Carol was laughing so hard the man finally hung up; my wife who considers the minimum Social Security benefit a windfall.

My wife doesn’t think that she is poor; she thinks that she is “middle class.”

This is the problem here in America. We have “middle class” folks, like my wife, who watch a show about prison conditions in this country, and who say to themselves; “Man, what can I do to get into that place? free medical and dental, room and board, my own private room, church services, conjugal visits, vocational training, and educational and career training programs. It will take me the rest of my life to earn those benefits out here in the “free” world. And if I can finagle a life sentence, I don’t even have to worry about old age benefits. Wow! That’s as good as the United States Marine Corps, better working conditions, more rights, and no bullets, mud or barbed wire either.”

We have been living in a country where the welfare benefits have been better than the going to work benefits. But that has all been changed - we no longer live in a “welfare” state we live in a “welloff-fare” state. But here is the Catch-22; when all of the hard working people complained about how even life in prison was better than their lot as honest hard working people, the “middle class” decided that the prison system needed a downgrade. When working people complained that people on welfare had better health care benefits than they did, the “middle class” folks solved the problem by removing health care benefits from welfare recipients.

Hardly pays to complain, does it?

Next time any of you poor, underprivileged complain; please don’t mention my name - or any names for that matter.

In the past, I would have suggested that the homeless be packed up, put on a bus and brought to a farm out in North Dakota, but I am sure that by adhering to even Geneva Convention rules, or the SPCA commitments, the farm will very shortly be better than conditions in parts of New York, Chicago, and L.A., and people all over America will be marching to North Dakota demanding equal rights.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Lets NOT Do It

Let’s NOT Do It


By Richard E. Noble
Cole Porter wrote a wonderful song years ago, that has served us all well over the years. “Birds do it, bees do it, even little fishes in the sea do it.” Cole goes on to encourage us all to get involved and ‘do it’. But I am inclined to think that this cutsie little message has gotten somewhat out of hand. It should be fairly clear to all of us that this world of ours is pretty much bursting at the seams. The human race appears to be ‘doing it’ to the point of its own peril and inevitable destruction.
Babies are being produced who can’t be fed; with no prospects for a future, or a present. In our own country, we see child abuse, unwanted babies, abandoned babies found in trash cans and plastic bags. We see the prevalence of divorce turning the commitment of marriage into the indulgence of a passing fancy.  More than fifty percent of American marriages fail. And the children of these failed marriages are clearly a mess. They don’t learn the meaning of commitment or the value of loyalty. They don’t believe that love is forever, but is something that can be turned on and off as the mood warrants. It shows in their work habits, in their values, in who and what they respect, or don’t respect and in the way that they conduct their lives, treat their friends, do their jobs, play their games and conduct their politics. Teenage pregnancy is running rampant, and no one seems to be embarrassed. We not only have divorce in abundance, unwanted, abused and even abandoned babies, but we have mentally handicapped, diseased, damaged children that are brought into the world by people addicted to drugs ... crack babies, they are called. Single mothers trying to raise their children in poverty is one of the U.S.A.’s major problems. And this is all happening in the home of the free and the land of the brave.
As we travel around the world, it gets worse. Babies crippled and uncared for, sliding around in orphanages on urine drenched floors; illicit adoption; babies being marketed and sold for profit; poor parents selling their kids; some people having babies specifically for the purpose of selling. In Asia young girls with drug addicted parents are being sold into lives of prostitution and crime to support their parent’s habits. In England and Europe we have once again the descriptions of Charles Dickens returning; Fagan and gangs of pre-teen pickpockets roaming the streets. In India we have children living in garbage dumps. In Brazil the abandon children problem is so bad that the adults have turned to shooting and murdering the street children as if they were rats carrying the plague. All over the world children are living in sewers and on the streets, being chased by police, and in some places beaten to death by upright citizens who find them a nuisance - children living as the Hoboes of the 1920’s and 30’s, and no one with a solution in sight.
So let me be the first to suggest that maybe we should ponder the thought of ... not doing it. Even if the birds, bees, and fishes seem to be having fun at it. And if we find the ‘urge’ impossible to resist, indulge it with at least some fore thought of the natural consequences. They tell me that children are inevitably prone to rebel against their parent’s example. Okay kids let’s show Mom and Dad how they should have not done it. Let’s don’t do it as they have done it. Let’s do it better, more responsibly, and with love and respect and not self-indulgence and indifference. Or maybe even not do it at all.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Pessimism - Clarence Darrow


Clarence Darrow

By Richard E. Noble

The majority of mankind lives in a state of denial. They spend the most of their lives trying to optimize life. Trying to convince themselves that it is not only a worthwhile experience, but that it is to one’s benefit to be born. This is a rationalization, probably brought about as a psychological compensation for our inability to control our sexual passions on the one side, and our genetic determinism on the other. Instead of telling our children the truth which is that we just couldn’t help ourselves. We were horny and driven by passion, lust, and stupidity; we make them think that we did them a service and a favor.
Life is by no stretch of the imagination a pleasant experience.
Clarence Darrow wrote a wonderful essay on this subject which he entitled, ‘The Consolations of Pessimism’. He begins this essay by stating that an optimist will never change the mind of a pessimist, and neither will the reverse happen. So, I guess that the only persons interested in this type of instruction are pessimists, and possibly, those that are still trying to make up their minds on the subject. Mister Darrow states the case for the pessimist eloquently. I could elaborate on it, but I doubt if I could improve it any.
He says that in his opinion ... “All optimists are dope fiends. And everybody is encouraged to take dope all through life.” He says that he agrees with Mark Twain who proposed the notion that intelligence is a curse, and that intelligence and happiness do not go together. He agrees with Schopenhauer and restates his premise that life is nothing more than ... “an unpleasant interruption of a peaceful nothingness.” He states that every religion in the world is based on the idea that death is not death. They are all trying to sew into the reality of life a psychotic silver lining, but all of their sowing leaves the King of life and this Existence, as naked as the day he was born.
Another facet of the optimist is his capacity to build man or the human species, more specifically his or her self, into a super natural creature ... greater than all other life on the planet ... with a capacity for universalizing his thoughts to the borders of divinity. I call this ‘ego-promorphism’. In answer to this idiosyncrasy Clarence quotes Schopenhauer once again ... “You ask me to love my fellow-man because of his nobility, his greatness of character. I can not do it, for I know better. But if you ask me to love him because of his helplessness, because of his weaknesses, that are common to him and to me, then I can sympathize with him and I can help him.”
Mister Darrow ends his lecture with this advise; “... It is all a question of taking life as life is. If you have tried all kinds of dope, as most of us have, and none of it will work, and you are bound to look at life as life is, then look at all of it, and prepare for the worst. It takes away the shock.”
Clarence adds that once he is dead, he could think of no greater curse than to be brought back into existence. If anyone brings him back from the dust of death to live once again, his first act will be to kill that person, he warns.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Lucretius (c 95 - 55 B.C.)

By Richard E. Noble

Everywhere you look through the annals of Philosophic history you will find a little bit about Lucretius - the only problem is that it is usually the same “little bit”.
Lucretius’ full name was Titus Lucretius Carus. He wrote a famous philosophical, didactic poem entitled De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things). This poem consisted of 7,400 hexameter lines and was divided into six books. According to St. Jerome this poem was composed during the lucid intervals of a madness which was caused by the ingestion of a philtre (love potion) the end result of which was that Lucretius killed himself.
The peom taught, among other things, that there was no need to fear death - obviously Lucretius took this notion to heart. He was just a young man at the time - in his mid forties (44?). And that seems to be it as far as the documented evidence about Lucretius goes.
But even the “documented” is not taken as absolute. It is hard to believe for many dedicated to the study of philosophy, reading what Lucretius says in book 4 about women and physical love, that he would be drinking a “love” potion. Nor are many students capable of accepting that this great philosophic poem was the ranting of the insane or the writing of a man in delirium. Some suggest that the whole story is a slander to defame Lucretius for his irreligiosity.
As far as the uncorroborated evidence goes, he seems to have been from a good Roman family and fairly well educated. He may have been a friend of Gaius Memmius - a Roman statesman. It is rumored that he kept to himself, maybe even living as somewhat of a recluse.
His famous poem is meant to be a interpretation of the ideas and philosophy of the famous Greek materialistic (atomist) philosopher Epicurus. But since not all that much is known about Epicurus, Lucretius gets high marks for his interpretive rethinking of the great Greek materialist.
Interesting to note, Epicurus didn’t like poets or poetry. In fact Epicurus felt that “a wise man would not write poetry” - and certainly not while drinking a “philtre”. A martini or a Manhattan probably would have sufficed and possibly the ill effects and the end result could have been avoided. Even two or three martinis might have left Lucretius with a slight hangover - but at least he would have been … leftover.
Lucretius may also have been a Consciencious Objector. He was not partial to militarism or the Roman idea of duty to the State (the Roman Draft). This was not a popular idea or position in the Roman Empire. Actually it wasn’t all that popular among the Greeks either. The Romans were big on Law but nevertheless they did not have a chapter of the ACLU in the whole Empire. So maybe killing himself wasn’t all that tragic - he could have ended up nailed to a cross along the Appian Way dying of thirst and starvation.
Lucretius is in some quarters snidely criticized as possibly being a Pantheist. A Pantheist is described by critics to be a sort of lunatic who prays at the foot of a Walnut or Spruce tree out in the woods rather than ascribing to the ego-maniacal, anthropological concept that the universe was actually created by a super-human type entity who is more often than not described as a cross between Charles Atlas and Superman.
In his poem Lucretius states that in the beginning there were atoms and vacuous space and all that is, results somehow from the interaction, random and wayward motion of these two quantities. If we interpret “motion” to be energy, we find ourselves not so far from what is accepted as the scientific cosmology of today - in fact it may be even closer to the cosmology of tomorrow. We will just have to wait and see.
When Lucrecius leaves the area of cosmology and gets into sensation and perception we vacate the area of precocious futuristic genius and enter the realm of the pre-scientific Platonic and Aristotelian misdirection. But when we emerge once again in the Ethics we find ourselves once again in the never-never land of genius, insight, and thoughtful contemplation. One could spend a great deal of time, indeed, pondering over the ethical passages in Lucretius’ poem.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Mein Kampf

Mein Kampf

Chapter 5 Part 3

[This is a part of a continuing series on this blog. Check out Search This Blog at the top of this page for more entries listed under the title Mein Kampf.]

By Richard E. Noble
At this point Adolf goes into a discussion of ‘economics’. The first economic principle of their party is to establish the position of ‘Capital’ in relation the power of the State. His first point is;
“… That capital in every case was only the result of labor. Therefore the State’s task towards capital was comparatively clear: it had only to take care that the latter remained the servant of the State and did not pretend to be the master of the nation...”
It is interesting that the fundamental principle of the new revolutionary party - this new anti-Marxist party - would incorporate as its founding economic principle the basic tenet of Marxism - the labor theory of value.
Adolf is clear here, the State shall reign over ‘business’ and its laborers. Earlier we found that the State shall reign over “religion”. And it should be clear by now that the State shall reign over the rights of the “individual”. It is getting very clear that ‘the State shall Reign’. The question to me here is, how does the State become the State, or where does the State get its presumption of power?
Edmond Burke in his ‘The Rights of Kings’ established that the rights of Kings came from God. The only problem with this theory as far as I can see is that Edmond was not able to produce ‘God’ for the purpose of verifying the collaboration.
In ‘The Rights of Man’ Tom Paine challenges Edmund’s theory, by stating that since God cannot be consulted directly on this matter, one must look for another explanation for the inherited power of the State. Tom says that all of the powers of any State are derived initially from the people being governed. In other words, the only powers the state has are those granted to it by the majority of its adherents. Tom’s ideas at the time were considered very radical and helped precipitate a revolution. This new revolution resulted in the reappearance of a type of government called a Democracy, more specifically a Democratic Republic ... a representative Democracy.
Adolf says that the power of the state is derived from the true historical nature of the human beast, a social Darwinism with the added spice of violence. In other words, the power of the State goes to whoever has the guile, cunning and ‘balls’ to take and hold it - a king of the mountain kind of a thing. The clear difference here between Tom Paine and Adolf Hitler is their degree of respect for ‘the people’. Tom had a reverence for the will of the people. Adolf was an elitist with an ingrained disrespect for the masses. It is only natural that one would be swayed towards the notion of democratic government, and the other towards totalitarianism.
In our own political system today we have politicians who feel that they were elected as representatives to voice the will of the majority of their constituency, and others who feel that they were elected as individuals to express their personal opinions, and when their personal opinions are no longer respected they will be defeated in the election. Adolf says that when he no longer represents the will of his people it is incumbent upon them to kill him.
This debate as to the position of the State, with regards to Religion, Business (Capital investment), and the individual is still going on very hot and heavy today here in the U.S. and all over the world.
“. ..In previous times I was not yet able to recognize the difference between this capital as purely the ultimate result of creative labor as compared with a capital the existence and nature of which rest exclusively on speculation ... In my eyes Feder’s (Gottfried Feder) merit was that he outlined, with ruthless brutality, the character of the stock exchange and loan capital that was harmful to economy, and that he exposed the original and eternal presupposition of interest...”
Whether or not it is moral to charge ‘interest’ on borrowed money has been debated for a long, long time. I don’t have enough information on the subject to get involved. All that I know on the subject basically is that if I did not have the ability to borrow money from people at one time or another in my life, I would not own my own home today, nor would I have been able to operate my own business. But maybe Adolf is talking here about the “debt based” Capitalistic System – I don’t know.
I must admit, I do not understand the nature of money. I can understand gold, silver, and other rare and precious things being used in place of bartering a cow for example, but when we get into paper money being printed by Governments with no real backing other than the faith of the people living within the nation coupled with the faith of other peoples living in foreign countries, I must admit I don’t get it. But when we look at a country that has just been defeated by War, it does seem rather obvious that any money it prints wouldn’t have a lot of ‘faith’ being put in it by anybody.
Again, I realize that I must do personal reading on the subject, and what actually makes the wealth of a nation seems a very good place to start. The economic system as I see it today looks like a house built out of paper. The stock market looks to me to be a place where worthless paper money is being pursued by imitation worthless pieces of paper. I’m sure that my knowledge is lacking on the subject, but I feel that there is something very unstable at the base of this whole system of money that exists today. But, I will find out more. In relation to Adolf, though, it does seem that he and others were also questioning the world economics of the day - especially interest, credit and debt.
But, once again when Adolf brings up ‘interest’, one has to consider it as a reference to Jews, banking, and possibly the banking empire of the Rothschildes. I know that Krupp was also unhappy with borrowing - and particularly from Jews.
Next in this chapter Adolf gets into what he calls the ‘program maker’.
“… he has to care less for the way but more for the goal. Hereby an idea’s correctness in principle is decisive and not the difficulty of its execution ... The program maker’s importance must not be measured by the fulfillment of his aims, but rather by their correctness and the influence which they have taken on in the development of mankind. If it were different, one could not count the founders of religions among the greatest men on this earth, since the fulfillment of their ethical intentions can never be even a nearly complete one. Even the religion of love, in its effects, is only a weak reflection of the volition of its sublime founder; but its importance is to be sought in the orientation which it tried to give to a cultural, ethical, and moral development in general...”
Clearly here we see Adolf espousing the theory that the end justifies the means, but the last part of the statement I find interesting. Adolf recognizes ‘the religion of love’, and its ‘sublime founder’. I wish that we had more explanation here by Adolf But nothing more is said on the subject, and I don’t remember him talking more on this subject as the book advances. But I will be on the look out. Clearly Adolf is showing a degree of respect here for religious leaders in general, and Jesus Christ, I would presume.
He is making the statement that we judge historically by intention and not by achievement because even these recognized great religious leaders did not succeed in establishing their goals. I am sure that there are those who will argue with this statement, but I am not one. My big concern in this instance is Adolf’s obvious ‘respect’ for the religious leaders and the religions of the past. Is his respect here for what they tried to do in establishing the religion of ‘love’?
I would think not. He has made it very clear that he does not believe in such a religion, but yet he has respect for their attempt. This stands out to me because Adolf does not have or show very much respect for anyone or anything that is in conflict with him or his philosophy. So this above statement stands out to me as a curiosity.
“… The execution of such aims as are of value and importance for the distant future brings little reward to him who defends them and finds little understanding with the great masses who, at the first, understands enactments concerning beer and milk better than farseeing plans for the future...’
This is, of course, more ego and elitism. To paraphrase; The poor simple masses never understand the greatness of people like me.
As one of the ‘masses’ I feel that I understand quite a bit about people like Adolf.
The ‘Military’ comes to mind here. I think in the Military, all Militaries, ego and elitism are nurtured, cherished, and promoted under the heading of what is called leadership. There are very few Military minded who can tolerate the notion of democratic cooperation. In our military here in the U.S. it is certainly frowned upon. But, I think, because of the training, background at home and in school, and our overall ethical and moral understanding of democratic principles it is very hard for even our Military indoctrinators to stifle these tendencies. You can take the boy out of the ‘Democracy’ but you can’t take the democracy out of the boy.
I am one who believes in the democratization of the Military. This is anathema to most militarily inclined. I think that the very things that attract the militarily inclined towards the military are what is wrong with the military.
We see more and more, in the news today, how our own military is becoming a bastion for bullies. But what do you expect with the training and education provided by our military institutions. The American people should be ashamed of these institutions. Being a ‘leader’ is not being a ‘bully’. Most of what they hold dear, I regret. Adolf is a perfect example of the militarily inclined. And for those of you who aspire to military principles, Adolf should be a prime example of what you don’t want to become.
Adolf really gets into this ‘program maker’ business. His words sound very idealistic, and if we didn’t already have the future of Adolf at hand, one might even call these words inspiring.
“… The program maker ... therefore his life is torn between love and hate. The protest of the present, which does not understand this man, wrestles with the acknowledgment of posterity for which, after all, he works ... For the greater a man’s works for the future are, the less is the present able to understand them, and the more difficult also is the fight, and the more rare the success...”
Now, I can understand such a statement coming from Galileo, or Copernicus, or Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein, but coming from Adolf this seems pure self-delusion, elitism and ego. I must ask what it was that Adolf knew that was so complicated for the rest of us to understand? Or is it simply that the rest of us didn’t agree with him? In which case he concluded that we couldn’t possibly understand, because if we did we would obviously agree with his complicated insights into the human condition which seem to be: that War is good, killing is fun; certain types of people should be destroyed; Germans are the best toughest and smartest, and all the rest of the world should either bow down and take notice of these facts, kiss reverently Adolf s ass and at the same time kiss your sorry ass goodbye because, of course, you must realize that we are all wasting good German air and taking the space of a potential little super German boy or girl.
This guy is unbelievable, and yet his whole nation lined up behind him. Not to mention many others about the world. I guess the moral of this story is; never underestimate the appeal to ego and elitism. Tell the already great and aspiring to more, that they deserve what they have and should have more, and you will build a financial backing, follow it by telling those that don’t have, that they should have, and will have, if you have your way, because they are certainly smarter and better than the world has seen fit to grant them, and it seems that you will have built an army of everybody.
“... But among them must be counted the great fighters in this world, those who, although not understood by their time, are nevertheless ready to fight the battle for their ideas and ideals. Side by side with Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as a Richard Wagner...”
All of these men were anti-Semites.
“… When listening to Gottfried Feder’s first lecture about the ‘Breaking of the Tyranny of Interest’... Germany’s development already stood before my eyes too clearly for me to know that the hardest battle had to be fought, not against hostile nations, but rather against international capital ... bourgeois politicians; today even they, provided they are not conscious liars, see that the international stock exchange capital was not only the great instigator of war, but that just now, after the fight has been ended, it does not refrain from turning peace into hell ... the fight against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the program of the German nation’s fight for its independence and freedom ... The Jew Karl Marx ... only now his ‘Capital’ became really comprehensible to me, as well as Social Democracy’s fight against the national economy, the aim of which is to prepare the ground for its domination of the truly international finance and stock exchange capital...”
Certainly the same claims can be made against ‘international capital’ today and maybe more so. The question is, is it a Jewish conspiracy, a world monopolistic business conspiracy, a stock market investment conspiracy, or the inevitable course of free flowing money in a self-seeking but not to be denied, capitalist world? But is Adolf saying that he agrees with Karl Marx or that Marx is a part of the Capitalistic conspiracy. It sounds like the later.
Of the possible conspiracies mentioned above, the only one that I don’t think is possible or credible is the Jewish conspiracy. But in defense of the other possible conspiracies mentioned above, I would credit them to self-gain promotion and not necessarily to the domination of any race or nation. My tendency is to be nationalistic and protective in order to avoid suffering to my own country and my own people, even to the point of stifling world progress.
It seems that money is like water or electricity and follows the course of least resistance. So the nation must understand this and do its best to get the money to flow in its direction. Other than this I really don’t know what a particular country can do. In the best of all possible worlds everyone would sacrifice for one another, but this is not where we are at. I don’t suggest ever giving up or not advocating this notion as an ideal, though.
Adolf signs off this chapter on a drum beat.
“… I started full of ambition and love. For thus I was at once offered the opportunity to speak before a large audience; and what previously I had presumed, merely out of pure feeling without knowing it, occurred now: I could ‘speak’. I thus led back many hundreds, probably even thousands, in the course of my lectures to their people and fatherland. I ‘nationalized’ the troops, and in this way I was able also to help to strengthen the general discipline National Socialist there is only one doctrine: people and country .What we have to fight for is the security of the existence and the increase of our race and our people, the nourishment of its children and the preservation of the purity of the blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland in order to enable our people to mature for the fulfillment of their mission which the Creator of the universe has allotted also to them...”
Adolf was obviously more influenced by the Jewish thinking than he himself realized. It is clear that he has turned Germany, and the German race into God’s ‘chosen people’. Adolf is a preacher once again, and it is clear that he believes in some sort of inspirational influence from the Divine Creator of the Universe - this again, his counter punch to the ‘Godless’ preaching of the Marxist. It sure does seem that the Marxist would have been a hell of a lot better off if they had simply avoided the concept of God in their preaching. They would have also done well to reconsider the natural instinct to protect ones own ... nationalism. Is this ‘nationalism’ another inevitable, like it or not, that cannot be denied?

Friday, September 08, 2006

Bloggin' Be My Life - Woody Guthrie

Woody Guthrie

“Bound for Glory”  Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

This book written by Woody Guthrie was also made into a movie. The movie starred David Carradine and Randy Quaid among others. I have never seen the movie and I had little idea what this book was about until I opened it up and started reading.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was not simply the story of a famous County singer and songwriter’s life, but a “Hobo-ing America” adventure story. It was written in the Mark Twain tradition - with all the down home and backwoods country dialect included.
I enjoyed this story - it is a “real” story about real people. Woody did a fine job in telling this story.
The book has great drama and pathos and would be enjoyable reading even if you didn’t know who the heck Woody Guthrie was or what he turned into. I read it as a history novel and place it in the category with the “Grapes of Wrath” or “Gone with the Wind”.
The book is about hobo-ing and hopping trains and looking at America from an open boxcar door. It’s about looking for work and picking fruits and vegetables - it is an adventure. An adventure that was common to tens and maybe even hundreds of thousands during the Great Depression.
There is nothing in this book that didn’t interest me. Whether it be the bumming around, the hunting for a job, the brawling in the boxcars, the playing music, the childhood remembrances, or the personal romance and falling in love as a young man. Woody was clearly describing for the reader what had been his inspiration in life.
This book puts you right there in Woody’s world. You can see it; you can hear it and you can feel it.
The story about the killing of the kittens and his tales of kids playing at war are intentional and philosophical.
Woody was a barn yard philosopher. I hear his song, “This Land is Your Land” as more of a scream of protest from the disenfranchised than a cry of ownership from the patriotic now that I have read this account.
The paperback copy that I have is also speckled with little sketches also done by the author. So Woody drew, sang, played the guitar and wrote - he was the complete package.
It does seem to me today that the world is filled with “types”. Woody was the sensitive “artistic type”. This type all think the same, feel the same, an instinctively aspire to the same goals in life. You almost know what they are going to say before they say it - it is how they say it that is fascinating though.
I guess if I had to sum this book up, I would say: This is the story of a beautiful man, describing his life in a not so beautiful world.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006



Pacifism or Nazism?

Reading between the lines of history.

By Richard E. Noble
Munich is known as the great sellout of World War II. What really happened, though? We are told that Neville Chamberlain, the pacifist leader of Great Britain, tried a last ditch effort to assuage that big bad bully Adolf from beating up on another of his poor neighbors.
In my reading of this situation, I have serious doubts about Mister Chamberlain’s commitment to pacifism. I seriously wonder if old Neville wasn’t slightly more committed to Nazism than to pacifism. I have this morbid feeling that both World War I and World War II were an attempt to subdue the same enemy. I get the feeling from reading between the lines of my History books that the real enemy of World War I was Socialism - the war possibly being initiated by some of the rich and the powerful to divert the European populace from the growing notion that the rich were too rich and the poor were too poor.
From as early as 1848 with the emergence of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and friends, the notion that the rich had much more than they deserved was causing havoc all over the world - in the U.S. also. (Read about big Bill Haywood and the I.W.W. - Wobblies and Woodrow Wilson). Once War breaks out, discontent at Home is treasonous. So if we look at World War I as a method of the threatened Rich and Powerful to stem the tide of domestic unrest, and by the war, turn a nice profit in the manufacture of arms, munitions, textiles, and manufacturies of all types and sorts enhanced by World War I, the War takes on a new light. Arms profiteering was established as a motive for the war.
But World War I was a failure. The War went on and on, and as it did the spirit of nationalism faded as the spirit of international Socialism grew. The notion that World War I was a conspiracy promoted and encouraged by rich and powerful influences for the purposes of growing more rich and powerful, infiltrated even the battle lines. This notion became so strong that in 1918 the whole Russian army walked off the battlefield. It was a show of Democracy said Leon Trotsky, and the Russian soldiers voted with their feet. In Britain, labor influences began to take over. In Germany the Socialist and Communists were toppling the government and sabotaging the War effort, just as Adolf had claimed years later - Mein Kampf - stab in the back theory. The moral victors of World War I were the Socialists and the Communists. The War had not stemmed the tide of discontent over social conditions. The poor were now even poorer and a good many of them were now dead or mangled, and some rich and powerful, especially those involved in producing arms, were richer than beyond their wildest dreams.
The War ends but the real battle goes on. The War against the spread of Socialism and Communism goes underground. Russia becomes public enemy number one. Money begins to pour into the pockets of any group or leader who can divert the marching feet of the poor from the homes of the rich and famous - thus the rise of the European dictators.
Hitler eventually becomes number one on the payroll of the super-rich, wealthy and powerful. He is bought and paid for, and makes a written commitment along with statement after statement to destroy the enemy ... Soviet Russia. He will subdue the Russian Bolshevik beast; turn the whole country, and all the inferior Slavic populations into a slave state. Hitler becomes the Dandy of the Dandy world. Many of the rich and famous about the World, including Neville Chamberlain and his rich British friends are dumping big bucks into an emerging German Nazi state.

Czechoslovakia - the big sellout

Czechoslovakia had gold, weapons and one of the largest and best trained armies in Europe. They had their border with Germany in the Sudetenland armed to the hilt with batteries and canons. They had a treaty agreement with France. If Germany attacked Czechoslovakia France was committed to come to the aid of the Czechs. The French had a treaty with the English. If the French marched the English were committed to follow. In addition to all of this, the Russians told the French formally, that if the Czechs were attacked and the French marched, Russia would come to aid the Czechs and the French in any and every way possible.
Stalin had read Mein Kampf and knew only too well what Adolf had planned for his Soviet Russia. In Germany itself a plot was brewing to overthrow Hitler. General Beck, General von Witzleben, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, president of the Reichsbank, Johannes Popitz, minister of finance and other disgruntled Nazis felt that Adolf was going too far. They were just about to place him under arrest when word was let out that Neville Chamberlain was coming to Munich to talk once again with Adolf. They decided to hold up their arrest plans until Neville finished talking.
Neville let the French know that if they marched on behalf of the Czechs, England might not follow. Neville convinced France to break its treaty agreement with Czechoslovakia and agree to let the Germans take over the Sudetenland. Most history books contend that Neville did this as a last ditch effort towards peace.
I find this explanation very, very hard to swallow. With this little ‘compromise’ Neville Chamberlain set the ground work for making Germany the most powerful country on the continent. Neville could not have been so stupid as to not realize this fact. I think that Neville Chamberlain was not negotiating for peace but setting up his Nazi friends and associates - Adolf Hitler and his cast of murders and killers - with sufficient power, weapons and money to give Adolf an army large enough and the personal confidence swelled enough to head his troops for Moscow. Just what Neville and his rich friends have been putting their money up for all along.
It is not revisionist history to write about the sellout of Czechoslovakia. It was screamed from the presses by journalists, and from the government seats by statesmen like Winston Churchill and others. What could possibly be in Neville Chamberlain’s mind many people screamed?
The coup against Hitler was over. The German people could hardly believe it themselves. The German leadership and Generals were in shock. Adolf had just bluffed and blustered his way into becoming the most powerful dictator in Europe, and there were few who did not realize this fact. So how could Neville have created such a blunder?
Simple ... it was no blunder. Neville knew exactly what he was doing and what he thought it would accomplish. He was fighting Communism and Soviet Russia, and he and his rich buddies around the world were hiring the whole belligerent German people as their mercenary army. Who cared if a bunch of nutty, forever hostile war crazed Germans wiped themselves out, killing a bunch of Russian Commies? Kind of like the recent War between Iran and Iraq. Let them murder one another, and we will kill two birds with one stone.
Neville and his buddies had the same enemy since 1918 when the Russians stabbed the allies in the back by walking off the Eastern front.


Poland was right on the road to Russia. Neville Chamberlain and his Nazi buddies must have realized that Adolf would be about to hit the Poles. So what was the big deal with Poland? If you weren’t going to “march” over Czechoslovakia, why the hell get all bent out of shape over greedy, ill-prepared Poland? The Poles were not too principled to grab their little share of Chezh property when the Nazis came marching in. So now why should we worry about them? If you weren’t going to go to War when you had all of the cards in your favor, why go now after you just cut a deal making the German army more powerful than it could ever have hoped to become in another ten years of arms production? What are you crazy?
Something unbelievable had just happened. Adolf had cut a secret deal with Uncle Joe. How could this Happen?
Joe Kennedy (ambassador to England) is quoted in a phone conversation back to Washington screaming in a state of panic; We’ve been tricked! We’ve been tricked ... and then went on to mumble something about disaster, or the end of the world coming. But my question is ... who’s ‘We’ Joe? Who is the ‘We’ that has been tricked?
Could the ‘We’ be Joe Kennedy, Henry Ford, Sosthenes Behn (ITT), the Rockefellers, The DuPont’s, Thomas Edison, James D. Mooney (Chevrolet), Montague Normand (Bank of England), Mary Astor (the Clivaden club), Prince Edward and his American Nazi bride, the Dulles brothers, A. Harriman, Prescott Bush and thousands of other wealthy businessmen, bankers, industrialists and manufactures who had been backing Adolf all along with BIG BUCKS so that he would fulfill his promise of squelching the Bolshevik threat, and neutralizing Mother Russia, and Papa Joe?
Uncle Joe and Adolf cut a secret deal to partition Poland. It wasn’t a secret very long though and I bet I know who made this secret known to the world. Uncle Joe was no dummy either.

Uncle Joe

Uncle Joe knew what was going on all along. He knew who was signing Adolf s “czechs” and why. If Uncle Joe was going to War, let’s have it in the Balkans or Poland first. Uncle Joe had been begging to join a western alliance of any sort for a long, long while. But Neville and his friends just snickered. How stupid could Uncle Joe be? Didn’t he know that the West was out to get him?
Not so stupid at all, maybe. He had given the West all the opportunities he could. They had showed their colors time after time. He was the one that they wanted to get and he knew it. What could he do but play both ends against the middle and get ready for the Germans. Obviously the British and the French weren’t going to fight for anybody but themselves. But what was this - Hitler wants to snuggle? This could be the knife that stabs Chamberlain and his buddies in the back. Besides what good does it do to sign any damn papers with England and France - both of them seem to have a swastika behind their back anyway. Remember Austria; remember Czechoslovakia. Signing a deal with Germany could be the best thing that ever happened. If Adolf was sincere, it is us against the West, and we have just turned the attack dog onto its own masters. If Hitler is up to a double-cross, we get a buffer with half of Poland, and we throw a monkey wrench into the Chamberlain/Adolf secret love affair. What’s to lose?
So we know what Chamberlain was up to, and we know what Stalin was up to, and France - the Monkey in the middle between Adolf and Neville - but what the hell was Adolf up to? Too much coke, heroin or what? Didn’t he know if he signed a deal with Russia that he would lose all of his rich Western backers?
This is the only piece of this puzzle that just doesn’t seem to fit. Adolf was no dummy. What was he thinking? He certainly didn’t need Russian help to beat Poland. If he invaded Poland would Russia declare War on Germany? Why should they? They had no agreement with Poland. If he simply invaded Poland, Neville and his chums would probably understand and make some other dinky excuses on his behalf. Maybe he and Adolf could have another talk in Munich about Poland? Maybe the Polish really wanted to be Germans too; if it worked with Austria and Czechoslovakia, why not with Poland? Next stop Russia. And once the Germans started fighting the Russians, the initial Western ‘hit contract’ would be complete. Now, let the bastards beat each other to death. Who gives a damn?
After reading Mein Kampf, I would have assumed that England would be last on Adolf s hit list. He respected the British. He knew how tough the Tommies could be from his experiences in World War I. He thought the Russians and Slaves to be a total waste of mankind. His plan for all of them was extermination. They were trash.
The French were a bastardized race. He has nothing good to say about them, but he certainly should have remembered them from World War I also. One thing that we do know is that he had a strong fifth column in both France and England (and the U.S.).
Winston talks in his, “The Gathering Storm”, of tens of thousands of confirmed, organized Nazis in England at the time of his taking the controls. He’s worried about assassination attempts against him and his family. We know what happened in France with the Vichy government. The only thing that I can figure is that maybe Adolf thought with all of his supporters and cronies inside the British Empire maybe with just a little poke here and a little poke there, the whole nation would collapse just like Austria and Czechoslovakia. Napoleon asked Tom Paine about the same scenario - earlier.
If the Germans are now teemed up with the Russians, now what?
This is bad news for the Big Buck Gang of Western investors. With Russia and Nazi Germany as a team, did Europe have a chance? Did the world have a chance? How could Adolf do this after all that he had said in Mein Kampf about the Russians - about Bolshevism? His whole career had been formulated on the I-hate-Bolshevism policy; send your check to A. Hitler care of “I Will Rid the World of Jews, Bolsheviks, and Scum Bags Inc.” So what is with cutting a deal with Uncle Joe over Poland? Why didn’t Adolf simply attack Poland himself? Why in the world did he have to cut a deal with Russia?
The Russians had been negotiating through their Jewish ambassador, Litvinov, to cut a deal with England and France for the defense of Poland if Germany were to attack. But once again, and true to form, Chamberlain drags his feet. If such a deal was cut, says Winston Churchill, World War II might have been avoided right there and then, but Chamberlain won’t do it ... why?
Why? Because what better road to Russia than through Poland. I mean if you and your rich Nazi (British and Western) friends are paying a guy to attack Russia; you’ve got to realize that he must go through some country. Poland is as good as any. But Britain has a treaty with Poland. Yeah, and France had a treaty with Czechoslovakia.


So Hitler attacks Poland and Chamberlain finally develops a back bone and abandons his pacifist ways, the History books tell us.
I don’t think so. Chamberlain suddenly straightened up when he got the first word that Adolf had cut a deal with the Russians. This was the unexpected slap in the face. All along everything else had been going according to Hoyle. It is my opinion that as long as Chamberlain thought that Adolf was going to attack Russia, he didn’t care if the Gestapo were renting rooms on Downing street, but once Hitler made the non-aggression pact with Russia, the party was over. I would imagine that was the biggest shock of Chamberlain’s life. He thought that he had Adolf in his back pocket.
So Adolf neutralizes his Eastern front and decides to go West, and the British are first.
Question: Why then does he not defeat England, before attacking Russia? What goes wrong? And if he found that he could not beat England, why the hell take on the Russians, and now have a war on two fronts?
I think that the history books and most historians are too kind to Neville Chamberlain. I agree with Winston Churchill who says in his ‘The Gathering Storm’ on page 346:
“In this sad tale of wrong judgments formed by well meaning and capable people, we now reach our climax. That we should all have come to this pass makes those responsible, however honorable their motives, blameworthy before History.”
Neville Chamberlain stands ‘blameworthy before history’ to say the least. Early on, he tried to give Hitler - British, French, and Belgium colonies. He had a blind eye to anti-Semitism and he reneged on the Balfour agreement and basically gave or left captive the European Jews to Hitler and his Nazis. He had capital investments in Nazi Germany. He was a major shareholder in Imperial Chemical Industries, partner of I. G. Farben. He assisted Hitler in all of his land acquisitions in Europe. He and Halifax dreamed of a London, Berlin, Rome axis says historian William Manchester. He sold out France and Czechoslovakia while at the same time saving Hitler’s butt from a German officer’s coup which Chamberlain had been fully informed of ahead of time. In fact, it may have been his fear that Hitler might actually be toppled from power that precipitated his trips to Munich in the first place. He outright lied to his own people about Ashley Montague’s returning to Hitler, $48 Million in gold already deposited in the Bank of England by Czechoslovakia. He only turned against Germany when finally Hitler made a non-aggression pact with Chamberlain’s real enemy ... Soviet Russia.
Hitler could have no better leader for his British Fifth Column than Neville Chamberlain. If ever there was a case for treason to be brought against a British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain is the man. But if Neville was to be brought up on charges of treason after the war, it seems that half of Britain’s upper crust, including Edward VIII the ex-King of England, would have been hung on the same gallows.
It is too bad for History that Britain (and the United States) had no Nuremberg type war crimes trials in their respective countries after World War II. I have no doubt that this current world would be quite a different place.
Neville Chamberlain gives pacifism a bad name. He wanted War and promoted War ... War between Germany and Russia.

Monday, September 04, 2006




By Richard E. Noble

Poverty seems to be both universal and timeless. But, as with pornography, everyone recognizes it when they see it, yet find the concept impossible to define. My reading in philosophy has led me to believe that nothing can be understood adequately unless it can be defined.

So far the simplest and most straight forward definition that I have is that poverty is a lack of money or material possessions.

This definition, of course, is very vague. Almost all of us can attest to having a lack of money and material possessions - to some degree - but we don’t necessarily consider ourselves to be living in a state of poverty. Today many consider the State of Poverty to be a real place - namely Mississippi. But even given this terrible set of circumstances most of us would agree that we would rather be poor in Mississippi that in India or Bangladesh, Bangkok or Baghdad.

So what is poverty? Let me give it a shot here:

Poverty is that state or condition in which an individual or a group of individuals within a given society or structure are unable to provide for themselves adequately.

Right off, I see that the problem with this definition is the word “adequately”. Who or how do we determine what is adequate?

Let’s try again:

Poverty is that state or condition in which an individual or a group of individuals are unable to provide for themselves in a manner acceptable to the majority of the people composing the group or community of which the said individual or group of individuals is a part or member.

This would make poverty into a relative concept. In other words whether a person is living in poverty or not would be determined by the judgment of the majority living within that particular group or community. And I would say that this is the case or fact of the matter. What would be considered poverty in Denmark might not be what is considered poverty in Bangkok.

But whether in Bangkok or Mississippi whatever we decided is poverty, this state is determined by “money” and or “material possessions”. It is not a state of mind. It is a condition that exists in economic reality.

And what determines a person’s relative poverty is a matter of what he owns or earns. If what he owns or what he earns is below a certain standard then it is deemed that he is living in a state of poverty.

The solution to poverty would then be that an individual or group of individuals living in poverty must somehow have their material possessions or quantity of money enhanced to that degree considered to be acceptable by the surrounding society or group.

So obviously, if we determine who are poverty stricken within a given society and we “give” them money and or material possessions in sufficient quantity we could eradicate poverty from within our society or any given society.

But as far as I know there has never been any society that has found this to be an acceptable method for the eradication of poverty. There are a million problems with this method and I don’t think that I have to elaborate.
But before we even get to the possibility of the above as a solution we must all be brought to accept that poverty does exist in reality within our particular societies.

In the early days of human civilization poverty was somewhat glossed over by the institutions of slavery and peasantry. And in these early days both slavery and peasantry were accepted as destined, inevitable, acceptable and in most cases established by God. Most of the early religious leaders - Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and many of the early Jewish prophets - saw an “injustice” in this attitude. They set out on the charitable mission of reforming the established acceptance of poverty and turning the eradication of poverty into a religious goal. Instead of the elite and successful being the “chosen people” of God - Egyptians, Romans, Greeks etc., these reformers taught that the “poor huddled masses” were the “chosen” and if not the chosen at least they were to be included and not excluded from God’s select circle.

This went on rather haphazardly until Calvin and others of his time began to spin the story of God’s love back onto the lives of the rich and famous - and I would say that this is pretty much where we stand today on this matter.
The debate after Calvin was picked up though once again during the enlightenment. Certain social thinkers - Godwin, Voltaire, J. S. Mill, Karl Marx and many, many more - began to suggest that poverty was not a condition established by God or that this condition was not inevitable but was brought on by society in general. This did not sit well with the Generals of society. One of the first defenders of the status quo and society in general was Malthus.

Malthus suggested that the reason that poverty, starvation and destitution were growing at such an alarming rate was very simple. Food supply increased arithmetically while people increased geometrically. Therefore starvation, destitution, and poverty were inevitable. It was not so much that the rich were not willing to share or that society in general was inadequate, but more because of mankind’s sexual practices - and especially the sexual overindulgence of the poor and poverty stricken.

Today conservative thinkers like George Will still advocate this same notion. George Will says that the eradication of poverty in the U.S. is simple; all we have to do is stop teenage pregnancy. George says this because 55% of all women living in poverty in America today were once pregnant teenagers. I would also bet that over eighty percent of us alive today were born of a teenage mother or a very recent graduate from teenagerhood but ... whatever.

Both of these answers I find problematical. First Malthus:

If the question is: How can poverty be eradicated or how can we eliminate poverty. Neither of these answers addresses the issue.

If as Maithus suggested we have people who are living in poverty or who are of the poverty stricken class, produce fewer children - we would still have “poverty”. We could have fewer people living in poverty provided we do not have more people immigrating into this class (peasant) from other societies or that the economic circumstances within the society do not deteriorate thus reducing more and more people to a state of fewer and fewer material possessions or less and less monetary income. Poverty as you will remember is an economic condition. It is defined by how much money and or material possessions a person has.

Mr. Will’s solution would also fail to eliminate “poverty”. People would still be living in a state of poverty if teenage girls did not become pregnant. If all the daughters of the wealthy in America were allowed to become pregnant as teenagers and all the poor and poverty stricken in America were prevented from giving birth as teenagers the ranks of those living in Poverty would probably not be changed one iota. We may have fewer teenage girls living in poverty but poverty would remain.

By keeping your daughter free from teenage pregnancy you may decrease her chances of living a life of poverty but you certainly won’t eliminate poverty. Poverty depends on how much money a person earns or has access to – not on whether she is a teenager or if she is pregnant.

This also applies to those who advocate education as a means of eliminating poverty. You can educate a child and thus give him a greater chance of earning more money - but this will not eliminate poverty. You can educate everybody in the world but if the world does not have enough jobs of above poverty level income available you will simply have smarter people living in a state of poverty. You will probably have the additional challenge of trying to outsmart brighter thieves and burglars. Then you will have to create brighter police officers - that may prove to be even more difficult that eliminating poverty.

If in the time of Malthus all poverty was in the peasant class, then it would follow that poverty could have been eradicated by eliminating all peasants. But if I have my history in tact, peasants were the people who did the farming - they did the hoeing and the cultivating. So if the peasants were all eliminated the food supply would also have been eliminated. In which case Malthus’s bright idea would not only have eliminated “poverty” it would also have eliminated “prosperity”. One may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth but if there is no pudding or porridge or Campbell’s chicken noodle soup what good is your silver spoon?

The bottom line is - if the peasants constituted “poverty”, in order to eradicate poverty the peasant material condition must be enhanced - somehow.

If a pregnant teenage girl must live in “poverty” because she is only capable of working at a job that provides a poverty sustaining wage - if she delays her pregnancy ten years but at the end of that time she is still only capable of working at a job which pays poverty sustaining wages, then what have you accomplished?

There is an elephant in the living room here that neither Malthus or George Will want to face. As long as you have jobs that supply only poverty sustaining wages you will have poverty.
Now we are getting to the real problem.

If your “system” demands that your employers must, of necessity, pay wages that sustain poverty - you either have to learn to accept poverty - shake your head and blame it on God as they have in the past - or you have to tweak the “system.”

The system can only be tweaked in so many ways as I see it.

You can leave the employer alone and “subsidize” those who must perform the poverty producing jobs by some sort of redistribution of wealth via taxation; or you can standardize the pay rate so that no job is poverty sustaining; or you can do a combination of both of these alternatives until there are no people living under the conditions that the majority of the people of this society find inadequate.

Unfortunately the poor can not eliminate poverty. One poor person can work and possibly change his condition but this does not eliminate the economic conditions that dictate the necessity of poverty. Poverty is not individual but systemic - only the wealthy or those who control the supply of money and the opportunity of attaining money can eliminate poverty - in other words those who control the “system.”

If we apply the Willie Sutton Principle here; If a situation can only be satisfied by money, then those with the money or those who control the supply of money are the only ones who can apply the solution. This means business, banking, government - society.

The poor have to be willing, able and have the capacity to earn the money if it is made available. This is understood. There will always be those that are incapable - but that is a much different problem.

In the U.S. it is estimated that there are between 36 and 40 million people living in what is defined by the government as poverty. Unemployment is estimated to be between 4% and 5%. That means that one third of these people are currently registered to be looking for employment. There are no statistics on undocumented workers or on the criminal underclass of chronically unemployed. So this means that over two thirds of these people (36-40 million) are currently employed. These people are working to maintain their poverty. You can either raise their wages, or give them what they need. As long as society allows employment that pays wages that sustain poverty - there will always be someone who is living and working in a state of poverty. You can not educate away poverty; you can not de-populate poverty; you can not racially cleanse away poverty. To remove poverty requires “money” - somebody is going to have to pay for it.

Saturday, September 02, 2006



By Richard E. Noble

“This dog-gone country is goin’ to the dogs!
All they can ever think of is makin’ a whole bunch a more laws!”
Then old Russell took a swig on his beer, for a pause.
“Yup, it’s just goin’ down hill ... goin’ to the dogs!
Take this drunkin’ drivin’ and all these darn new laws,
why a fella can’t even have a drink
before some cop is on top a him with one of them claws.
I mean, there I am ... they took away my license last year …”
Then old Russell took another slug of beer.
“I’m tryin’ to get home goin’ down one of them dark back roads
when all of a sudden one of them unmarked cars with the sirens unloads.
Jerked my heart ... nearly sent me into a ditch;
that gosh darn foolhardy son of a switch!
I’ll tell ya, I think a man drives better when he’s drunk.
He drives more careful, I mean, gosh-darn,
a man knows he’s drunk when he’s drunk!
He don’t race around slippin’ and slidin’.
Heck, he’s got all he can do to keep from collidin’.
I mean drivin’ drunk makes a man nervous enough,
tryin’ to keep a straight line and all that stuff.
Why, when I’m drivin’ drunk, so’s I can barely see
the last thing that I need is some darn cop hidin’ behind some tree!
Why, I’ll tell you the truth;
it’s them sneekin’ Po-leece that’s the problem for us all.
Get rid of them sons-a-guns,
and we’ll get this country’s horse out of this stall!