Tuesday, February 26, 2008

James Monroe

(president from 1817-1825)

By Richard E. Noble

James Monroe was the last of a trilogy. They were three like-minded presidents; Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and all from the same party. Twenty four years of "liberal" Democratic rule.
The Federalists (conservatives) were so beaten and demoralized that their political party actually dissolved. By Monroe's second term the Federalists didn't even put up a candidate. Monroe ran unopposed. To avoid a unanimous approval which would have put Monroe on a par with George Washington, one elector voted otherwise.
Monroe was also the last of the patriots from the Revolutionary days. He fought in the Revolution, was wounded and promoted to the rank of general. He was very active in government before being elected as president. He studied law under a private tutor, Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson respected George Washington if not always agreeing with him, but Monroe and Washington seemed to have a genuine competition. One author actually credits Washington falling sick and eventually dying as due to the announcement that Monroe had been elected Governor of Virginia in 1799. George may have gotten himself sick over Monroe's success but it wasn't Monroe who killed him. It was the doctors and their eighteenth century medical practices.
Monroe was sent to France by Washington in 1794. He was not considered loyal to his duty by the president and was recalled in 1796. He kept mouthing off on the side of the French and against the British; just the opposite of what George and the Federalist wanted him to do. Not to mention that he got Tom Paine out of the Bastille where old Tom was about to have his head chopped off. Tom Paine who very shortly thereafter published an open letter back in the Colonies saying what an ungrateful scumbag was their president, George Washington. Tom was the main revolutionary propagandist before and during the war and felt that, at the least, George should have acknowledged his American citizenship when the French asked who the hell Tom Paine belonged to. George kept his mouth shut and instead of being released or deported, Tom went to jail to await his execution. Monroe was considered to have a "checkered" diplomatic career but under Madison he straightened out the State Department, and then as Secretary of War went on to even greater public success. It was his role during the War of 1812 that is said to have guaranteed his eventual presidency.
The Monroe Doctrine was his real claim to fame, historically. It was a brave enactment even if he didn't have the fire power to back it up. These were obviously the words of a fighting man, a general ...We're the new world; you're the old world. We won’t bother you. Don't you bother us. Any attempts on your part to colonize on this continent will be considered an attack on our security...
Boy! Tough guy. One has to wonder how a big brave man, a general and wounded war hero; a man who wouldn't even let the most popular man in America, George Washington, or the powers of Europe push him around, could let his wife and family poop all over him.
James was probably the poorest president yet, but his wife, Elizabeth Kortright, seems to have been the biggest snob yet to queen the Mansion. Her and her two spoiled rotten daughters had to be the poor man's biggest trial in life. It is no wonder he was considered a hard drinker.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Education is the Answer

The Eastpointer

Education is the Answer?

By Richard E. Noble

In my "gallivanting" about town, and even out of town, I have noticed in all of my favorite stores - the Dollar General, Bill's, Piggly Wiggly, the IGA, Wal-Mart, K Mart and numerous others, there is often a solicitation of some kind for "education". They don't want to educate old people like me - who are almost dead anyway and for whom a better education would be superfluous; somewhat like sloping caviar to the hogs, I guess. They want to educate young people so that they will be able to get a "good" job when they grow up.

I wonder if these businesses realize that if their education drive is truly successful, they will go out of business.
Certainly if you study hard, get that good education and go to college, hopefully you will not be working at Bill's, or the Dollar General, or Wal-Mart or K Mart. You will get a "good" job not a "regular" job.

If all our children get a good education who is going to do all the "regular jobs" that comprise 80% of the jobs available in the "real" American economic world ... illegal aliens? It is also interesting to note that this 80% of American jobs is provided by "small businessmen" and not large corporations. Many small businessmen can’t even afford workers compensation never mind health and retirement benefits – this is called “Supply and Demand”. Thirty percent of our present labor force is now contract labor, freelance independents, self-employed and working at home – read no insurance and no benefits.

And furthermore, if all of our children are able to get a good education, then, of course, a "good education" will no longer be of any value - because everybody will have one.

If everyone has a good education then everyone will qualify for all the good jobs. In which case, the pays for the good jobs will then drop and the good jobs will not be so good anymore. This is already happening. Competition from educated young people coming from India and Asia are making the world of the American college educated more and more challenging.

But, on the positive side, I suppose that if you have a good education you will then be smart enough to understand why you are now unemployed. I suppose that could be looked at as a step in the right direction.

As we all should know, we live in a capitalist/competitive society. In this type society what you really want is a good education for your child and a lesser education for your neighbor's child. In this way, your child becomes the manager of the Bill's or Wal-Mart and your neighbor's child gets to gather up the shopping carts in the parking lot.
George Will and others tell us that the solution to "poverty" is education. George thinks that we can educate people out of poverty (and teenagers out of pregnancy).

Sure you can educate YOUR child out of poverty. Yes, you can educate A PARTICULAR CHILD out of poverty, but after he/she graduates from poverty, the state or institution of poverty still remains. New lesser educated people move into those poverty positions. As long as there remain places where people do not earn a living wage there will be poverty. If you educate every human being in the entire world but continue to pay people wages on which they are unable to sustain themselves - you will simply have well educated people starving to death in ghettos and slums around this country and the world.

So, is education a good thing? Of course it is.

Should you want a good education for your child? Sure you should. Do you want everybody's child to get an education equal to that of your child?

Well, I suppose you don't really have to worry about that because everybody's children are all not capable of getting a good education. Some of our children will only be qualified to gather the shopping carts in the parking lot no matter how much education we attempt to drive into them. I met an American kid the other day who was so slow, I commented to my wife; “That boy is either severely mentally challenged or he is a very tall two year old.” And what happens to all these type children in America?

Truly, do you want to live in a country or a world where everything is fair or in one where you and yours have a special advantage? I think we all know the answer to that question.

And that special advantage can be inherited wealth or inherited genetic potential and I'm sorry but neither can be considered "fair."

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Assassin in the Sky

Assassin in the Sky


By Richard E. Noble

When you get into your 60s, as I have recently, it suddenly appears that there is an assassin in the sky who has for some reason picked you and your family and friends as targets. He is not hiding in a swamp in Vietnam, a bell tower in Texas, or in a book depository window. He isn't peeping out of a hole drilled in the trunk of a car but he is taking potshots. He is up there somewhere in the sky and he is methodically liquidating everyone you have ever cared about or loved.

Often his first targets are your mom and dad, and next he picks off an uncle, cousin or even a brother. There is no modus operandi. He seems to be selecting your friends and relatives randomly and using any and every type and kind of exterminating agent.

Every so often you get a call. He just hit Leo and he wounded Billy and Jake. They are both in the hospital and they may not make it. But why those guys? What did they do?

This assassin has no mercy. Sometimes it is a car crash, or a mine explosion. He uses any kind of weapon. He spreads bacteria and infects one of your old chums with a horrible disease. He manufactures cancer causing agents in a secret laboratory and emaciates your aunt. He gets into canneries and processing plants and contaminates the food supply.

Your old high school girl friend dies of some type infection you never heard of before.

He zaps one of your own children with a crippling, bone deteriorating disease that even the specialists never heard of.

He puts bugs in drinking water and worms grow in people's eyeballs or he poisons human blood. People die left and right. A college buddy of yours who joined the Peace Corps dies from polluted water born bug infestation.

He has figured out ways to manipulate the human genetic code. He can turn your potential healthy child into a cripple or an idiot with one little twist here or there.

This guy in the sky is totally unscrupulous. He has no moral character. He kills women and children. He tortures babies to death before they even get the opportunity to enjoy life. He somehow has figured out how to manipulate the earth's inner core. He causes volcanoes to explode and drowns unsuspecting, primitive people and sophisticated populations alike in a bath of scolding lava.

He can produce tremors in the earth and cause roads and overpasses to break apart and whole cities to collapse. Your daughter gets killed in Mexico City by one of these catastrophes. You can't understand it. Why you? What has this assassin got against you?

There is no end to this guy either. As fast as the scientific detectives find cures and antidotes for his biological warfare and highly infectious diseases - he invents a new one. Every day there is a new one. And every day brings news of a friend who has this new and horrible thing - and he dies. And you and your buddies all say; How the heck did Joe get that crap. It must have got into him when he was in Korea or Nam.

Year after year and day after day the number of your friends and relatives gets fewer and fewer. Pretty soon you are surrounded by a world of strangers. None of these strangers know your old buddies and old friends. What is worse none of them are interested in what happened to any of them.

They aren't interested in you either. The other day the assassin in the sky shot a round and hit you in the eye. Suddenly the world looks like a Picasso painting. You get out of your car and a leg freezes up and you fall to the ground. What is this assassin in the sky pulling now? You try to tell folks what is happening to you but they don't want to see your scar. They laugh. It is like they think that you are supposed to die.

You’re walking home with a bag of groceries one afternoon and you realize you don't remember where you live. How can that be? The assassin in the sky must have put something in your drinking water; he must have infected your salami sandwich; he's put bacteria in your bicarbonate of soda.

This son of a gun, this terrorist in the sky will do anything to get you and yours. He has no mercy; he has no conscience. The man is a serial killer and he will eventually kill everybody. He is a terrorist that can't be stopped. He is the war nobody can win. He is the biggest. He is the badest! He always wins. And you and yours always lose. If you don't lose today, you will lose tomorrow. And if you are the last one in your crowd to get hit, there will be no one there to hold your hand or to be sorry. The strangers don't know you. What do you expect?

The Eastpointer

There is no Inflation.

By Richard E. Noble

I don't want to upset all you retired folks out there but I have found out that the Government has been lying to us about inflation.
I know ... I know, you are all shocked. You can't believe I could actually come right out and say the U. S. Government is lying. I am sure some of you think I should be charged with treason and sent to a foreign country to be tortured. I know to actually believe our government would lie is really hard to swallow. There must be some other explanation? Maybe it only appears that they are lying? Maybe I have misinterpreted the facts? Well, I'll let you be the judge.
Inflation is interpreted by the government as CPI. The CPI is the Consumer Price Index. This index was once calculated by comparing the prices of a certain group of goods and services from time to time and then estimating the increase or decrease in their costs. This task was performed by the BLS, the Bureau of labor Statistics. As the cost of everything in this so called basket of goods and services kept rising, the government decided that something had to be done. Something had to be done because this method was costing the government too much money in cost of living adjustments to retirees, retired veteran’s pensions, Medicare payments, government employees, bond holders and whatever. So they appointed somebody named Boskin and instructed him to form a commission and study this problem.
If you are retired, receiving a pension, have your life's savings invested in government bonds, working under a government contract, or anything that is adjusted for inflation by somebody and you now find that you can only afford to buy half a tank of LP gas, or you can no longer afford to drive your car more than one block in any direction, or you are wondering if cat food can be consumed by humans, you can thank Michael Boskin and his Commission. He and his commission rearranged the methods for estimating the Consumer Price Index.
Mr. Boskin had some "overlooked" economic concepts that he brought into the CPI evaluation like; substitution, hedonics - quality estimations, geometric weighing, seasonal adjustments, along with the elimination of certain incalculable volatile variables like energy, food and local, state and federal taxes. So, for example, when the CPI was calculated without consideration for food, energy and taxes it was often found that there had been no inflation at all. Wow! Isn't that great?
So you ask; why is it that I don't have enough money to live on any more? Well, obviously you are still heating and cooling your home, eating food and paying your taxes. If you will just stop doing those things you will find that you have just as much money as you always had.
But just in case that wasn't enough to bail out the government, Mr. Boskin thought up a few other safety measures to guarantee that inflation didn't go up.
One of his measures he called "substitution". In other words if the price of beefsteak in our typical basket of goods went up from the last time that Mr. Boskin went shopping, he substituted hamburger; and if hamburger was too high he substituted chicken; and if all the meat was too high; he substituted vegetables; and if vegetables were too high one can imagine that Mr. Boskin would have us consumers check out the ingredients on a bag of Friskies. Then, of course, we don’t have to buy the name brand Friskies, we could buy Gritskies and we don’t have to buy Ritz Crackers we can buy Fritz or Blitz Crackers.
Next on Mr. Boskin's list of improvements was "hedonics" or quality compensations. Let's say that Mr. Boskin bought a TV for $329 on his previous expedition and then on his following survey the same model TV cost the exact same price. But the new TV had a better picture, was estimated to last 2 years longer, and due to improvements in technology it had a much better sound. Mr. Boskin figured that even though RCA chose not to charge us for these improvements the government had no obligation to be so generous. Mr. Boskin estimated, for example, that these improvements were worth in terms of quality enhancement, $135. He therefore calculated that a new TV didn't really cost the consumer $329 but only $194. As you can plainly see our CPI actually went down instead of remaining exactly the same.
But hedonics only seems to travel in one direction. If you personally don’t benefit from these new technological wonders because you have grown old and your vision and hearing have diminished or even if you didn’t need and don’t want the new and improved model, you still get billed by Boskin nonetheless.
I could explain to you Mr. Boskin's "geometric weighing" as opposed to the old antiquated arithmetic method and his seasonal adjustments but I don't really think it is necessary. I think that most of you out there will agree with me when I say that Mr. Boskin and the U.S. government who hired him are not simply spinning the truth but are really telling lies.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years. He has authored two books: "A Summer with Charlie" which is currently listed on Amazon.com and "Hobo-ing America" which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" which will be published soon.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Espionage and Sedition

Striking America

By Richard E. Noble

First came the Selective Service Act with its traditional opposition, then the Espionage Act, and then the Sedition act. From the radical Labor point of view, World War I was a Capitalist endeavor. The War had been started to quell The Revolution. What Revolution? The Revolution that was taking place around the world; the Revolution that was going to do away with Capitalism and the Capitalist, with the factory owners and their slaves. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand was just an excuse. To quell the Revolution, was the goal.
How, exactly, the “People” were going to take the world back from the millionaire, monopoly, trust Capitalists who had highjacked it was a matter of opinion. The world, like the Newtonian universe, was now being guided by unalterable laws. Supply and demand was sufficient to dictate the life or death of men, women, and children. The Anarchists had their view of this Revolution. The Syndacalists had a view, the Communists had a view, and the Socialists had a view. It was somewhat like the Biblical story of Armageddon. It was going to happen. It had been foretold by the prophets - the economic prophets, the democratic evolutionary prophets. Its truths were being accepted by the poor and the laboring classes all over the world. The days of the rich and powerful were numbered. The “Robber Barons” were through. There would be a new evaluation of the worth of labor. The day of reckoning was inevitable, if not predictable as to where or when.
The Russians had walked off the battlefield of World War I, and were now engaged at home in the “true” war - the war for the liberation of the common man. In the U.S. a Civil War had freed the black slaves, but now the white wage slaves wanted their freedom also. The wage slaves had been fighting ardently for decades. Jay Gould, industrial baron, had suggested that the best way to end this labor revolution was to pit half the workers of America against the other half and then let them kill one another. Woodrow Wilson found the perfect means of fulfilling Mister Gould’s dream. He had Congress declare war on Germany.
No American war had ever been by the unanimous consent of the people. World War I was the most contested war in American history. The country was very quickly divided once again into patriots and rebels, into loyalists and traitors. The traitors, according to the Espionage and Sedition Acts, were those who opposed the war in any way shape or form. We had seen this type of legislation under the presidency of John Adams. Many were imprisoned for simply speaking their mind under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson rescinded these Acts and freed the Adams’ critics from their cells.
Now we had Woodrow Wilson, a supposed “liberal”. We also had Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, a religious man, a man of peace ... a Quaker. Palmer and his predecessor began indulging in mass arrests. With the aid of the F.B.I., Palmer actually conducted raids all over the country - sometimes arresting thousands at a time. If you were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, you could be stopped on the street and required to show to the authorities your Selective Service exemption card or papers. If you could produce no such authorized rejection you would be arrested. You would be held in jail or prison until it could be proved that you were not a “draft dodger”. If you could not show proof, you were inducted into the military service and quickly shipped over to Europe to help the cause of old Black Jack Pershing.
It was decided by the Supreme Court that once a war began your rights as citizens, guaranteed as unalienable under the Constitution, were temporarily suspended. It was further decided by the Supreme Court (Arver v U.S.) that Conscription, the Draft, was not slavery or involuntary servitude under Article I ... "the Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies."
One might be so bold as to ask what Congress’s right to “raise and support an army” had to do with arresting free men in the streets and impounding their lives. One might be glad that the southern pre-Civil War legislators didn’t get the Constitution to state their economic ... right to plant and raise cotton. We would undoubtedly still be living with slavery today. As the State is granted the power to usurp individual freedom in order to procure "slaves" for its armies of war, the plantation owner could restrict freedom and procure slaves for it "right" to grow cotton. Since when can our God-given rights be suspended for any reason? They can’t – unless we give them up.
Freedom is not something that is granted by the Constitution or the Parliament or the Politburo. Freedom as pointed out in our Declaration of Independence is a prerequisite of "birth". It comes with the territory ... if you want it and have the ability to hold onto it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness ..." Freedom comes with birth via a Creator, if you believe in such a thing. But Creator or no Creator, our forefathers felt that freedom was "self-evident". It didn't need a proposition. It didn't have to be proved. Freedom was an obvious fact of life. But even then as today in this country there are those who would deny this "truth". There were and are those who did not and do not understand the content of their own declaration.
The chief targets of the Espionage and Sedition Acts were the labor unions and the Socialist reformers, in general the dissident population.
The Wilson government and Mister Palmer began shutting down Socialist newspapers all over America. The first Amendment and free speech no longer applied. We were at war for God’s sake! If any newspaper wrote anything against the war, against Conscription, against President Wilson, the entire newspaper could be fined, imprisoned or both. And many had just such a fate.
The American Socialist Party, which had drawn millions of votes in previous elections, had elected Senators, Congressmen and Governors was now the party of traitors. Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist presidential candidate was arrested for speaking out against the War, convicted under the Espionage Act and sentenced to ten years in prison.
The Industrial Workers of the World, the I.W.W. would be the biggest single group to be attacked under these laws. It became a crime to simply be a member of this rather large and influential labor union. I.W.W. members were arrested by the busload and train carful. Around the country, I.W.W. members were arrested by the thousands. The United States of America v. William D. Haywood et al is a dramatic example of the circumstances existing at that time.
The entire I.W.W. organization was indicted ... "the indictment portrayed the I.W.W. as a violent, treasonous conspiracy to sabotage the war effort, seize control of industry, and overthrow the United States Government by unlawful, tortuous and forcible means and methods, involving threats, assaults, injuries, intimidations, and murder..."
There were five felony counts to the indictment. The first count charged that the Wobblies conspired to "hinder, delay and prevent by force" the execution of the declaration of war.
The second count charged the defendants with "conspiracy to injure, intimidate and oppress" those citizens who supplied war materials to the government.
The third count charged that the Wobblies conspired to hinder registration for the draft.
The forth count alleged that the defendants conspired to cause "insubordination, refusal of duty and disloyalty" in the United States Army.
And the fifth count charged that the Wobblies had conspired to violate the postal laws by using the mails to further the other four conspiracies.*
Though these charges were serious, evidence supporting these charges was lacking in credibility. The entire case for the prosecution consisted of nothing more than written statements and propaganda put out by the I.W.W. The "overt" acts charged against the I.W.W. were all literary. In fact these overt acts included two telegrams written by Big Bill Haywood protesting the Bisbee deportations.
The Bisbee deportations were investigated by the office of the president and these investigations were supportive of the opinions expressed by Big Bill Haywood in his telegrams to the President. The anti-draft and pre-war negative literature of the I.W.W. was included in the indictment. Even the preamble of the union itself was included as an overt act in the indictment.
The prosecution had 57 packing crates containing 25,000 copies of I.W.W. literature in evidence. There were over four hundred Wobblies arrested. The lawyer for the defense was George Vanderveer. Clarence Darrow would not come to his old friend's defense on this one. Clarence had put his passivism aside and was now in favor of the war.
The presiding judge was Kenesaw Mountain Landis. A decidedly biased man who personally felt that any man that was against the war should be stood up against a wall and shot. In 1917 he had sentenced over one hundred draft resisters to long prison terms. He announced that America was a nation of cowards. The very fact that a draft was necessary indicated to Judge Landis that Americans were cowards. If they weren't cowards they would already be in Europe fighting.
One might wonder why Judge Landis wasn't already there, himself.
It was April Fools Day, 1919 when over one hundred I.W.W. defendants were marched over to the Chicago court house. The prosecutor pointed out to the jury that free speech gave anyone the right to advocate breaking the law. The defense pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was just the type of free speech that the prosecution would like to outlaw.
The I.W.W.'s preamble stated that the working class and the employing class had nothing in common. This was considered incendiary and inflammatory, not to mention against the law. The Sedition Law stated that there would be no writing allowed that might turn the opinions of the public against the government.
The I.W.W. was obviously against the war. They were against war in general. They had made this position known long before war had been declared. No evidence of any nature, written or otherwise was brought forward indicating that they had ever acted on any of these ideas or theories. If patriotism means waving the flag while profiteering or believing that war is the best means of settling disputes then we are not patriots, declared the defense. Vanderveer closed his argument with an idea that has been revived recently. "What would Jesus have done?" was his question to the jury. Would Jesus have called these men traitors or men of peace?
Yes, the I.W.W. in some areas had gone out on strike after war was declared, but so had the A.F. L. and many, many others. These were not strikes in opposition to the war but legitimate labor disputes. They were in opposition to bed bugs and housing for workers built over pig pens, and women workers being forced to sleep in doorways in Mexico City and men being forced to sleep on floors in Rockefeller-owned coal camps. These strikes were about abusive child labor, and migrants sleeping in haystacks and vigilantes beating up workers, forcing them from their homes, if they had one, and dumping them out in the desert or elsewhere as happened in Brisbee.
Yes, there were strikes but they were sporadic and random. None was nation-wide or affecting any industry in particular. Witness after witness was brought to the stand proclaiming the uprightness of individual Wobblies and socially decent acts performed by the organization as a whole. The charges were ridiculous. There was no evidence. The defense had made their case so thoroughly that they actually decided that no closing statement to the jury was necessary. Vandeveer simply appealed to the jury to act as good Christians and to ask themselves ... what Jesus would have done ... if He were in their place.
The jury returned in less than an hour with over forty thousand pages of transcript to ponder, with over 400 cases against 101 men to consider. Their verdict was that all the men were guilty on all four charges made against them in the indictment - Jesus lost once again.
Judge Kenasw Mountain Landis stated. "When the country is at peace, it is the legal right of free speech to oppose going to war and to oppose even preparation for war. But once war is declared, this right ceases." The judge handed out the harshest sentences possible. Ninety-five men were given prison terms amounting to 807 years and fines of more than $2,400,000. Big Bill Haywood was given twenty years at Leavenworth.*

*"Roughneck" The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood, by Peter Carlson.
*Works used in this essay include: "Roughneck", The Life and Time of Big Bill Haywood, by Peter Carlson; "Recent American History by Lester B. Shippee; "The American Pageant" by Thomas A. Bailey; "A History of American Labor" by Joseph G. Rayback; "Verdicts Out of Court" Clarence Darrow, edited by Arthur and Lila Weinberg; "The Annals of America vol. 14.; "Labor Problems in American Industry" by Carroll R. Daugherty; "Fighting Faiths" by Richard Polenberg; "The Americans" A social History of the United States 1587-1914 by J.C.Furnas.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Sink the Ship Theory


By Richard E. Noble

It seems to be common knowledge that Ronald Reagan had a Sink the Ship economic philosophy. Many economists and left wing pundits and apologists galore explain, rather mater-of-factly, in book after book that it was the goal of the Reagan administration to bankrupt the federal treasury and to create an national debt so great that when and if a Democrat did get into office there would be no money left in the treasury or readily available for borrowing to invest in domestic spending. This is kind of like that movie "The War of the Roses".
In that movie two people who were once in love with one another and had married and were pursuing a common goal, were now at odds with one another. Their animosity towards each another becomes so great that eventually they each pursue a policy of total destruction of everything that they had built while together and in love. The movie ends in a scene of total destruction with both of them gasping their last breathes.
My first reaction to this type insanity with regards to our government is to say that this is absolutely ridiculous. But in light of the fact that Ronald Reagan did bankrupt the U.S. Treasury and create a national debt greater than the total combined efforts of all the presidents who had preceded him I have to consider the possibility that this type of treasonous insanity could be the fact.
And then when the next Republican George Herbert Walker Bush came along he did exactly the same thing - only double.
When Clinton came into office the treasury was in fact bankrupt and the national debt was beyond reclamation by many conservative estimates - where it remains to this day.
Now George W. is president and he seems to have performed the same unbelievable economic undermining of the American people that his father and their political hero Ronald Reagan had inspired.
One might be inclined to say that this has to be a first in all of American history - but it is not.
Herbert Hoover did basically the same thing in 1932.
When FDR came into office in 1932 the U.S. treasury had been vanquished - and primarily by tax giveaways and supposed incentives to the wealthy investment and business community. In Herbert's last days in office he had a going out of business sale - everything had to go. And it went!
The majority of these wealthy people took their tax breaks and incentives and turned them into gold bars and shipped them over to banks in Europe for safe keeping.
Before Hoover there was another famous Republican president, Benjamin Harrison, who did pretty much the same thing to Grover Cleveland. Grover Cleveland was forced to borrow money from the notorious J. P. Morgan to bail out the federal government when he took over for his second term.
So it does seem that bankrupting the federal government could be considered an old Republican tradition - but would any American do this consciously and not by accident? Could this be a serious Republican strategy?
If this is truly the case what could possibly be the Republican logic behind this strategy?
Well if we look at government, especially populist democratic government, as being in opposition to the wealthy and the power of the wealthy to control the system, I suppose a case could be made.
In other words, if I/we have all the money and the King/government is broke then could I not control the King or the government with my wealth? I suppose that I could.
But what about all of the other people in this democratic state? Would they not resist?
Well if we wealthy surround ourselves with a few others who we allow to be fairly wealthy and another even larger group that we allow to be moderately wealthy, and we buy up all the media and information sources could we not establish a ruling state behind the apparent popular state?
Well, of course we could. It has been done for century upon century. It is the history of the human race.
But could it be done here in the United States of America - the best informed and most educated country ever in the history of mankind - and a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people?
Certainly not?

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years. He has authored two books: "A Summer with Charlie" which is currently listed on Amazon.com and "Hobo-ing America" which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" which will be published soon.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Eastpointer

The Wefing's Man

Richard E. Noble

I bumped into The Wefing’s Man the other day at Burger King. I never knew his name, but every oysterman, shrimper, or seafood worker who worked this bay for any length of time in the last forty years in Franklin County will recognize this fellow as I speak about him here in this story. This gentleman worked at Wefing’s Marine Hardware in Apalachicola for 37 years. Today he is in his seventies and still looking good, I might add.
I have often wondered to myself if Mr. Wefing really appreciated this fellow. In hobo-ing around America we met a Wefing’s Man type guy here and there - but his type is rare.
The Wefing’s Man worked at this store for 37 years. He knew every part number of every bearing, seal, prop or carburetor on every outboard motor manufactured in the last one hundred years. I may be exaggerating slightly but his memory for all these numbers did amaze me.
My wife and I would walk into that store with a greasy outboard motor part in our hand and The Wefing’s Man would take one look at it and say; "Why that's the bottom bearing on a 1965 Johnson 25 Horse. The part number on that is 123-345-654-971-674327A. I'll go look in the back and see if we have one in stock."
He would return in a few minutes and if you were really lucky he would say; "Well, today is your day. Not only do we have that part but it was ordered in 1967 so you get the 1967 sale price."
"Well we mark up the parts for sale in the store when they come in. This part came into this store in 1967 and that's the price that we sell it for today."
"Why do you do that?"
"Why not? We marked it up when it came in and we paid for it when it came in. So why shouldn't we sell it for what we thought it was worth then?"
"Ah, I don't know but it sounds good to me."
On one occasion my wife and I went into Wefing’s to buy a block and tackle so that we could hoist our oyster boat up off the ground. We were having trouble getting enough people together to come out to our place in the "boonies" and flip our boat over in our yard. We wanted the block and tackle so that we could hook it up to a tree and then stand our boat up on edge and scrape and paint the bottom. We bought this giant block and tackle that the store stocked in 1946 for $29.35. There were other block and tackles laying around next to the one we bought that were selling for three and four times the price. They had obviously been inventoried in 1956 or 1976. I could never believe this practice, especially when you would walk into the grocery store and every can of peas had six different price stickers on it.
On another occasion we trucked our 1965 Johnson over there in pieces. He took one look at the motor and said: "You got your bottom crankshaft seal on the top."
"How can you tell?" I asked.
"It's easy I can read the number on that seal right there on the top and its the number of the bottom seal." He then explained to us how to switch everything around. We had bought the motor secondhand. It had the seals on upside down. We followed his instructions and we were back to work the following day.
When I left the Burger King The Wefing’s Man remarked that I had made his day by remembering him. All the way home to Eastpoint I keep thinking how many times he made my day through the years. I was very happy to finally return the favor.
Yes sir, he made my day many, many times. He was always a smiley face, always had time to deal with our problem, he had tons of advice and free instructions - and all at no extra charge. I never left that Marine Hardware store and my friend The Wefing’s Man feeling that I had been over-charged. Money was always dear but I always got my money's worth at Wefing’s. And that Wefing’s Man was a big part of that feeling. That's a feeling I don't often get anymore.
If you have a Wefing’s Man type fellow in your employ, I hope that you recognize him or her and that you realize just how lucky you are. His kind is special. Whatever you're paying him, it's a bargain - believe me.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years. He has authored two books: "A Summer with Charlie" which is currently listed on Amazon.com and "Hobo-ing America" which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" which will be published soon.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Federal Reserve


By Richard E. Noble

The Federal Reserve was started in 1913 during the Wilson administration, after the Panic of 1907. The Panic of 1907 was the most devastating money crisis up until that time in U.S. history. Congress created, The National Monetary Commission, under the chairmanship of Senator Nelson W. Aldrich to investigate this disaster. Senator Aldrich was a very wealthy and powerful man. His son-in-law was John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Aldrich was a business associate of J. P. Morgan. The Aldrich Commission supposedly investigated the causes of the Panic of 1907 and associated bank failures and made recommendations to President Wilson which were used as the basis for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The Federal Reserve would be an independent, central, banking system with the financial backing of the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve System would serve to organize the banking industry and provide security to depositors. It would be the bank of “last resort”. It would initiate monetary policy by controlling interest rates and money supply. It would loan money to member banks and to the Federal Government. It would provide for itself by charging interest for monies loaned to the member banks and to the Federal Government.
One controversy over this institution is with where or how does it get the money it loans? One might think that the Federal Reserve gets its money from the Federal Government. In which case, the Federal Reserve would be borrowing from the Federal Government and the U.S. Government would then be charging them interest. That is not the case. Instead the Federal Government borrows from the Federal Reserve and the Government pays the Federal Reserve interest for that service.
Instead of borrowing money from strangers, why doesn’t the Federal Government just print up its own money when it needs it?
Well, it seems that this is supposedly against the Constitution. The Federal Government, under the Constitution, is not granted the right to print up “paper” money. The Federal Government is allowed to coin money out of metal but not to print it out of paper. It seems that our forefathers had a good deal of trouble with paper bank notes before the revolution and then there was the Continental during the Revolution. As a result they decided to withhold that privilege from the Federal Government. That did not mean that independent banks could not print up paper notes.
Originally, individuals put their gold coins in vaults/banks and received a receipt. These paper receipts were then used as money. Why not? They were as good as the gold and silver coins that backed them. So it thus came about that bankers could print notes and thus manufacture paper money. Now the forefathers, in all their wisdom, did not say in their Constitution that the Federal Government could not “borrow” paper money. They said that the Federal Government could not “print” it. So there you go. The Federal Government is not allowed to print paper money but it is allowed to borrow paper money.
So then, why in the world would the Federal Government want to borrow paper money? Well, let’s say an emergency pops up, like World War II, or some such thing as that. The Federal Government needs a bunch of money quick. They could just raise taxes, but that takes time and annoys people – especially taxpayers. Instead they just go to the Federal Reserve and borrow a bunch.
But where does the Federal Reserve get all of its money? One might think that a bunch of rich bankers got together and put all of their money into the Federal Reserve Banking System and then they loan this money to the Federal Government. Not so. It is true that a bunch of rich bankers did get together, but it is not their money that they are loaning out. It’s the Treasury department’s money. But, you ask, I thought the Federal Government couldn’t print up any paper money? Well, it’s printing up the paper money, not for itself, but for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has given the Federal Treasury a Federal Reserve Check. The Treasury is printing up the money for the Federal Reserve as specified by the Federal Reserve Check. So then, once again we would assume that the Federal Reserve owes the Federal Government for the amount of this Check and therefore must pay the Federal Government interest. Not so. The Federal Reserve Check has been written to the Treasury with a U.S. Treasury Bond as collateral. The Federal Reserve Check simply represents the U.S. Treasury Bond that the Federal Reserve has in its vault.
Where did the Federal Reserve get the U.S. Treasury Bond that it is using for security to write the Federal Reserve Check to the U. S. Treasury? It got it from the Treasury Department. But, you say, I thought that the Federal Government was not allowed to print up paper money? It didn’t print up any paper money. It printed up a paper Treasury Bond. The Treasury is now printing up money for the Federal Reserve not for the Federal Government.
Okay, so the Federal Reserve now has all of this money that it had the Federal Treasury print up based on the collateral of the Federal Treasury Bond that the Treasury printed up and gave to the Federal Reserve. How does the U. S. government now get this money so that it can pay for World War II?
It borrows this money that the Treasury has just printed up, from the Federal Reserve and pays the Federal Reserve interest for the privilege. The Federal Reserve sells these bonds at the government’s specified interest rate to rich Americans and now foreign countries like our once biggest enemies China and Russia. It is this borrowing plus the interest owed that amounts to what is called our National Debt. This National Debt is somewhere in the neighborhood of nine or ten trillion dollars.
Why don’t we just pay off the National Debt?
Well, in order to pay off or collect all of our Treasury Bonds from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Government would have to call in all of the Federal Reserve Notes that have been printed, turn the Federal Reserve Notes in to the Federal Reserve and get the Treasury Bonds back. But if the Federal Government did this today, there would be no Federal Reserve Notes left in circulation, and consequently nobody would have any money. The whole world would be bankrupt and besides the Federal Reserve has already sold the Treasury Bonds to individuals and other nations.
Well why doesn’t the Federal government just print up the money and skip the Treasury Bonds and the Federal Reserve thus avoiding any debt? Because it is against the Constitution and it would create inflation.
But doesn’t the National Debt and borrowing the money create the same inflation plus build an impossible debt? Yes it does. But the government can deal with that by juggling the Cost of Living Index and explaining to people that even though a gallon of milk now costs them ten dollars instead of one dollar there has really been no inflation when you consider hedonics and the cost of foreign oil along with the price of tea in China.
But doesn’t inflation bankrupt the middle class? Yes it does, but it doesn’t matter as long as the middle class thinks that it is still middle class even when it is bankrupt.
Well, what if these individuals or other nations who have bought all these Treasury Bonds bring all of these Treasury Bonds back and want to cash them in?
In that case, the Federal Government will write up some new Treasury Bonds, give them to the Federal Reserve Bank as security, collect a Federal Reserve Check, have the Check printed up into Federal Reserve Notes, borrow the Notes from the Federal Reserve Bank and pay off all of the nations and individuals who want to cash in all their old Treasury Bonds with these new Federal Reserve Notes.
But what if they don’t want more paper?
What the hell do they want?
They want gold or silver or land or free pizza.
Well, take the damn Federal Reserve Notes and go buy some of whatever it is that you want. What’s the problem?
Ahh...I...I don’t know.
And then I thought the government has the right to mint coins without borrowing from the Federal Reserve and creating debt. So why don't they just mint enough coins to buy back all the Treasury Bonds. But then it costs the Federal Government two cent to mint every penny and a dime to mint every nickel because of the market price of copper and zinc. Man a government just can't win here.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Big Government


By Richard E. Noble

"You obviously believe in big government and bureaucratic rule. That is what is wrong with you Democrats. Governments are corrupt, the more government you have the less freedom you have. We Republicans believe in free enterprise. The government must be reduced and businesses should be allowed to operate without government intervention. Government regulations should be removed or at least held to a minimum and business should be allowed to compete and prosper. That is what America is all about - as businesses prosper so do all the people of America, rich and poor alike."
This argument seems to be the bottom line in most of debates by "regular" folks. The Republicans usually close off with a statement similar to the above while the Democrats stand there stammering.
So it would seem that the Democrats are for big government and the Republicans are for big business.
When Americans are asked in surveys which group they would rather see prevail most folks vote for business over government.
I find this truly strange. Both categories, business and government, have a horrible historical record. But it is quite clear that people recognize the inadequacies of their government while the inadequacies of the business world seem to pass them by unnoticed.
When we say for example that our government and our politicians are corrupt what does that mean? It usually means that the institution of government and its representatives are disproportionately influenced by the prejudiced or corrupt advances coming from the moneyed interest within the nation or the community - for the most part, business and big business in particular. We hear talk and read in books and newspapers about "K" street and other corrupt influences primarily from the business world.
If we look back into our historical record we see over and over the negative, corrupt influences of successful businessmen on government - John Jacob Astor, John D. Rockafeller, Commodore Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, J. Pierpoint Morgan, Henry Frisk, the Railroad barons, the steel titans, the textile magnates, the mining monopolies, the patroon and land barons and exploiters of pre-colonial days. If we jump forward today, and look at the Anderson accounting scandal, the Savings and Loan fiasco, Enron, our present Military Supply profiteering outrages, our most recent real-estate and banking debauchery, the bottom line should be that we should all understand that business can not be trusted and that when our government has been corrupted it is most often corrupted by business finagling and misbehavior.
So when Republicans say that we should abandon government because it is corrupt and embrace business, the government corruptors, isn't this rather peculiar? It seems similar to me as saying that we should abandon law and order because it fails to do the job so often and let crime prevail. Or because the referees are so often wrong we should eliminate them from the game and let the players engage unrestricted. This is truly a strange an illogical point of view.
It was not big business or the business community in general that made the work place safe. It was not businessmen who thought up pension funds and retirement benefits. It was not the business community that developed paid vacations or Christmas bonuses. No businessman ever suggested that he should be paying for his employee’s health care or assisting an employee in periods of unemployment. In fact, businesses were very reluctant to pay for health damages that were caused directly and negligently by them. Contrary to popular belief businessmen have never been in favor of fair and equal competition. The only time business has ever supported fair competition is when a more powerful company has cornered the market via its stronger influence (read money and corruption). No businessman ever championed shorter hours and higher pays for its workers. It was not the business community that promoted public education. There is nothing fair, charitable, humanitarian, or equal in the businessman's handbook.
For decades, even centuries, businessmen have fought against the rights of their workers. They have been responsible for inadequate housing, an unhealthy food supply, poor sanitary practices, substandard education, unsafe medicines, and unfair opportunity. Today huge conglomerates and businesses promote pollution and poverty and social injustice all over the world - all in the name of profits.
Today in our present worker/business society the right of workers to bargain collectively is still being challenged by powerful business interests along with workers rights in general.
We all know today that large insurance companies are allowing people to die by automatically denying them legitimate claims in order to improve their bottom line. Dead people don't cash claim checks.
Corporations have a legal obligation to make a profit - not to promote the general welfare. Businessmen are involved in a game that teaches them to make decisions based on profits and not on morality, justice, fair play or even patriotism. Businessmen throughout history have constantly traded to the disadvantage of their country (even in times of war), the disadvantage of their employees, the disadvantages of the environment, the disadvantage of the poor, sick and downtrodden. Any successful businessman will tell you that his first obligation is to the bottom line - not to morality, decency, or even the health and general welfare of the community or the nation. Businesses are supposed to make a profit. Making a profit is not the sole purpose of government or the highest calling of a government representative in a democratic government.
Businessmen are expected to be concerned with profits first and foremost. Governments are supposed to be concerned with the welfare, health and prosperity of all of their citizens.
It is difficult to criticize a businessman for making profits, just as it is difficult to criticize a soldier for killing people in a time of war. There is often no good way to do it. But it is always easy to criticize a politician for making decisions that do not benefit everyone equally. It is easy to criticize politicians because subconsciously we all hold our politicians to higher standards than we do our businessmen. To make business the business of our government is a big step in the wrong direction. Business should be one of the concerns of our government but certainly not the entire concern. The concern of the government is the overall well-being, health and security of all of it citizens.

Friday, February 08, 2008

James Madison

James Madison

(president from 1809-1817)

By Richard E. Noble

James Madison is known as the father of the Constitution. He is most noted for making that favored compromise that American Blacks are so proud of today. He is the guy who suggested that five black slaves should be counted as three real people. Actually this was a liberal step for the time. Prior to this and according to the "rule of law" of the day, slaves weren't really even people. They were furniture. They could be bought sold, used, abused, beaten, tortured and even killed. Why they should have been counted as a part of the population for the purpose of determining how many representative an area was entitled to is beyond me. Certainly they weren't going to be represented by anybody. What does furniture have to do with representation? Saying that five black slaves equaled three "human beings" must have made a lot of Southerners gulp and take a deep breath. Prior to this, one couldn't get them to acknowledge that a ton of Blacks could make a pound of human flesh.
To be noted as the father of the American Constitution for suggesting such a compromise is a dubious compliment indeed.
He is also responsible for the War of 1812. This was really a war that he inherited from his good buddy Thomas Jefferson. Tom had been side stepping a confrontation with either the British or the French during his entire administration. The British kept harassing our ships and taking our seamen. The French said that if we didn't fight the British when they boarded our ships, they would then sink our ships. Talk about being Malcolm in the middle.
Tommy's answer to all of this was an embargo on shipping and trading. The American Mercantile Association thought that this was just a super idea. Super, if you want to drive everybody into bankruptcy. So James finally decided to petition congress to declare war. He chose to side with England, as opposed to France.
This was an unpopular war and turned the Federalists against him. The Navy held its own against the British in the Great Lakes and elsewhere but the Army didn't do so well. When the British landed an army on the east coast and proceeded to attack Washington D.C., Jimmy skidattled. In his hast to vacate the area, it seems that he completely forgot about Dolly who was in the midst of throwing a dinner party for the victorious army of the Potomac while checking out the window of the White House through her spyglass for their arrival. Dolly, gutsy little lady that she was, was not about to leave D.C. without Jimmy, but little Jimmy, a hundred pounds soaking wet, had no such qualms with regards to Dolly. She was obviously a big girl who could take care of herself and should have known better. Finally Jimmy, safely back home on the plantation, got a note out to poor Dolly, and she was able to get her butt out of there just in time. Not only that, she took a load of candelabras and a portrait of George Washington with her.
Actually, maybe Dolly should have been president. She sounds like my kind of girl.
Jimmy was elected president twice. Obviously, the Federalists didn't have a serious candidate. It seems that his victory(? in the war of 1812 bolstered his prestige.
He also had a speech defect and spoke so quietly that nobody could hear him. This may be the real reason for his political success. Gosh, I hope saying all of this doesn't get Dolly mad at me.

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Abelard (1079-1143 A.D.)


By Richard E. Noble

Wow!!! The actual story of Heloise and Abelard is one for the romantic novelist. Abelard and Heloise is adult material that dwarfs the story of Romeo and Juliet to a cutesy type children’s story.
Abelard is a famous philosopher and teacher. He was born in 1079 and died in 1143. He was a cleric and eventually became the Canon of Notre Dame. He was hired by a dude named Fulbert to teach his niece, Heloise, philosophy. Heloise was both pretty and smart. Though Abelard was concerned mostly with “universals” in his philosophy, he was very much concerned with Heloise and her various “particulars” in his everyday life. She readily took to philosophy ... and Abelard. It was only a matter of time before Abelard and Heloise were heavy-breathing in just about every unoccupied room in the castle.
Soon their sex-ploits were common talk all over Paris. Finally Uncle Fulbert became embarrassed and gave Abelard the boot from the castle. But old Abelard was still very much hot to trot. He tried to talk a maid at the Fulbert mansion into sneaking Heloise over to the rectory for a little romp behind the sacristy. But the poor brown skinned, shapely maid was having quite a time of it herself and she said that she would only be willing to produce Heloise for a little heaven if Abelard would park his truck in her garage for a little hell on a weekend or two.
Abelard felt that such a suggestion was “universally” unacceptable. I guess he was too “particular”.
In any case, Abelard dismissed the poor maid. She in turn went to Uncle Fulbert and told him all about Abelard’s proposition. Uncle Fulbert was, to say the least, totally incensed. He decided to nip this little romantic adventure in the bud. He then bribed a servant of Abelard to sneak into Abelard’s bedroom while Abelard was sleeping and cut his “universals” off with a razor. Which he did!
After that, Abelard’s life was religiously correct if not exactly personally “upright”. Abelard then went to an abbey and Heloise to a nunnery. From these outposts they communicated their passions to one another in a series of letters over the years until they died and were buried in a grave next to one another.
My God, what a story!!!
What is interesting to me is that most of my philosophy books give very slight mention to this story. Frederick Copleston S.J., for example, has this to say: “As a result of the episode with Heloise, Abelard had to withdraw to the Abbey at St. Denis.”
That’s it.
In the next paragraph, Copleston S.J. goes on to say, “Abelard was a man of combative disposition, and unsparing of his adversaries. He ridiculed his masters in philosophy and theology; he was difficult to get along with; and was unable to live in peace with the other monks.”
Well, golly gee S.J., do you think that his irritable disposition might have something to do with the fact that HE JUST HAD HIS “YOU KNOW WHATS” CUT OFF? No big thing to you, I suppose, S.J., but I could imagine myself being a little “out of sorts” for a week or two if I were in old Abelard’s shoes. This “episode” would be a little difficult for me to generalize, even if I was a philosopher, but I suppose that this “particular” opinion of mine might not be “universally” acceptable.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Alan Greenspan

The Eastpointer

Alan Greenspan Had My Job

By Richard E. Noble

My editor has advised me that my Eastpointer column should be concerned with local people and local problems or at least have some tie-in to the local community. Soo...
I once knew an oysterman who looked exactly like Alan Greenspan. And speaking of Alan Greenspan, I have several Eastpointer type observations to offer.
Being a student of economic thought and theory, I have been listening to Alan Greenspan give his lectures on TV for years and I even purchased two or three of his past publications. My analysis of Mr. Greenspan has always been: What in the world is that man talking about?
I would sit in front of the TV and make a call for silence in the room each and every time Mr. Greenspan would appear on the TV giving his economic address to the Congress. I would listen to every word assiduously, determined to get “The Message” from the Prophet.
After he would finish, my wife would ask, Richard what did he say? My usual answer went something like this: Well, he said that the economy is good and bad and that it has a tendency to go up and down; those who can afford to wait should and those who can’t shouldn’t; he said that we should all be concerned and worried but that we should retain our faith in the fundamentals of economic thought and not panic; he said that some people will probably benefit and that other people probably won’t.
“And what has all of that got to do with the price of tea in China?”
Well, actually he did mention the price of tea in China and he said that it may go up but that there were extraneous forces that indicated that the possibility of a downward trend due to tea coming from Nairobi could possibly be an influence giving some concern to Chinese tea exporters but Americans who drink primarily black tea which comes from the lower regions of Botswana really have no need to be overly concerned - but of course Britain is an entirely other story.
“So basically he said nothing?”
Now recently Mr. Greenspan has appeared on TV to tell the nation that for his entire stay at the Federal Reserve he has in effect said nothing. He admitted that over the years he has purposely said nothing because for him to say something would have put the onus of responsibility for the future world economy on his shoulders. He admitted that he said nothing for all of these years intentionally.
Now, in response to questions about his job at the Federal Reserve he explained that as head of the Federal Reserve he tried his best to do as little as possible since he is an avid believer in the Laissez Faire philosophy.
So basically as head of the Federal Reserve he did and said nothing and now he has just written a book that is selling by the millions explaining why he did nothing and how his doing and saying nothing has benefited the nation and the world.
I have come to the conclusion that this man had my job. I mean that is the job that I have always dreamed of. Alan Greenspan made big bucks for doing this job where he did and said nothing by his own admission. But he actually earned nothing when compared to what he would have made if he had remained in private enterprise where I imagine he would have had to do and possibly say something. But, of course, he can’t tell us what he would have said and done if he had remained in private enterprise because his revelation of such information would change the course of the economic world.
Where do I apply for that position? I can do that. And I could do it well. I am sure of it. Every place and position that I have ever held in my life others have accused me or said flat-out that I was doing nothing and that what I had to say about what I was doing amounted to nothing whatsoever.
I certainly have the resume’ to fulfill the position as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of America following the Alan Greenspan guidelines. I have no doubt about it. I can do and say nothing with the best of God’s creatures - just give me the chance and stand back and watch me not do anything. Actually, just keep reading this column and see if you can point out where anything that I have ever said has ever accomplished more than nothing whatsoever. Clearly the proof is in the pudding.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.