THE HOBO PHILOSOPHER

2012-01-28T18:18:00.000-05:00

B o o k s 4 T o m o r r o w: QUICK REVIEW: "Cat Point and Them Dang Oyster Peop...: “ CAT POINT AND THEM DANG OYSTER PEOPLE ” by Richard Edward Noble REVIEWED BY : David Fritz OVERVIEW In 1976 my wife and ...

2012-01-21T10:57:00.004-05:00

If you are interested in Mr. Watson's book "Mills, Migrants, and the American Dream," you may also find my book, "America on Strike" of equal interest. Thanks.

Bruce Watson

Mills, Migrants, and the American Dream

Bread and Roses - 1912

By Richard E. Noble

My discovery of the Bread and Roses Strike of 1912 in Lawrence, Massachusetts has provided me with an extremely interesting source of intellectual and personal insight.

Although I was born in Baltimore, Maryland my life from a few months old to age 27 was spent in Lawrence, Mass. My father and my mother were ex-mill workers - as were their fathers and mothers. My father was from the established English heritage and my mother descended from the later Eastern European migration. She was Polish.
I only worked briefly as did my older brother in a reconstituted worked-over enterprise that rented old mill space after the mills were abandoned by their textile owners. But even though I never worked in a textile mill, those mills played an ominous and hauntingly important part in my life.

The original mills were the reason for being for the city of Lawrence. First God built the mills and then he sent the people to work them. The mills came first and the people came second - and that is the history of the mills of Lawrence - and maybe mill towns all over America. And it is always interesting to me that when it was all over what was left was row upon row of empty red brick pyramids and mile after mile of drained sapped people and landscape. It was like a war zone where the weapon of choice was not explosives but a psychological sort of Neutron bomb.
Fighting for the jobs and positions at the mills basically determined the social status of the populous. From the 1840s to the 1950s the mills were the heart and soul and supplied the bread and the few roses that might have been scattered here and there throughout the city.

From approximately the time of my birth forward the mills were on a steady decline and by the end of World War II the mills had for the most part abandoned Lawrence. Unemployment through the late forties and onward through the fifties rose to over forty percent. That was a number that I had been seeking for quite some time. The 1929 Depression was only 30% unemployment. I knew the situation was serious because my dad was one of that 40%, but as is always the case - even with 40% unemployed, 60%still had a job. That 60% living at the time knew only too well how lucky they were, but their descendants have long since forgotten – or were never even made aware of the hardship of their neighbors. I found that 40% figure in this book by Mr. Watson.
Another question that had perplexed me is why I had never heard of this strike; why I had never seen any monuments in the city parks; why my parents and relatives never spoke of it; why the Nuns in grade school never mentioned such an event even in passing; why the Brothers didn’t teach it in high school; and the bigger question why the history books ignored the American labor movement almost entirely.

I first got interested in this subject matter by discovering, quite by accident, the Bread and Roses Strike. Researching this strike then led me to the labor movement in the U.S. and then in the world.

For me making this discovery was like finding the missing link or the lost piece of the puzzle. I truly feel now that understanding labor history or the history of the labor movement is the Rosetta Stone for interpreting our modern civilization. This is where our modern history begins - and this period in man’s evolution has not come to an end yet. It is the latest episode in a long continuous battle for freedom, dignity and equality.

Mr. Watson explains in his Epilogue that the history of the Lawrence Bread and Roses Strike was suppressed in the area because it had been a brand of shame for the city as a whole throughout the entire U.S. and throughout the world. Lawrence became a poster child for how not to handle a mill strike and how not to treat new immigrants, working women and children in America. The City (establishment) of Lawrence had been disgraced and shamed and they then proceeded to propagandize a “cover” story or a rationalization to hide and cover over what they had done and what had actually happened. And it worked because all that remained for the rest of the century was their version of the event. It is only until recently that the whole truth of the matter has been seeping out.

It seems to me that this is basically the same story with regards to the American Labor Movement. And the truth about it is also beginning to seep out.
Just as the Germans have been the last to admit the horror of the holocaust and the Japanese the last to accept the Rape of Nanking and their other World War II atrocities, America will be the last to admit its persecution of the working class and the working poor. America hates poverty - and it hates to accept or admit the fact of it even more.

America is filled with poverty, slums and industrial blight and it seems that it always has been - but yet most Americans will deny its very existence - and so it goes on and on and on.

Reading this book was more than a history lesson for me. Since I was raised in the area, every street name brought back an old memory; all the family names brought back friends and neighbors; and the stories brought back reason and insight into many personal mysteries.

I really enjoyed this book and I’m happy Mr. Watson wrote it. I will add it to my collection of Lawrence memorabilia and labor union history.

I am left with the desire to read more about Lawrence and I know from other reading that there is a lot more to read. Every open door leads to another door yet to be opened.

Very surprising to me is the discovery that at Cornell University there is actually a school of Industrial and Labor Relations that offers a four year degree in labor studies. It was started in 1945 and is the only college in the United States offering such a degree. I intend to do a good deal of reading and learning at their web site. It should be fun.

Bread and Roses by Bruce Watson is a great read for anyone interested in history in general, and the Labor Movement in particular. This book should be required reading in every high school in the Greater Lawrence area - but I have no doubt that it is not and will not be in the future.

2012-01-16T18:20:00.004-05:00

If you like Mr. Grieder's book, "Who will Tell the People" you might also enjoy "America on Strike" or "Mein Kampf - An Analysis of Book One" both books are written by Richard Edward Noble. Thanks.

Who Will Tell the People?

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I have been educating myself for over forty years now. I have chosen many great professors to help me along my path to understanding, but I won’t get into that at this moment, other than to tell you about my most recent selection as professor of Civics.

In high school I had a course called Civics. I never figured out exactly what the word “Civics” meant, but I interpret the word as encompassing an explanation of the society and world currently happening around me – politically, socially, economically.

In my high school Civics class we read the daily newspapers, random magazines, and kept up on the local government issues, among other things.

In trying to understanding the modern day world –governments, societies, and general direction of the civilization – I found myself very confused. I wanted to find a professor who could get me up to speed on what is really going on in the world around me. As you know one must choose selectively because there are “so many books and so little time.” Consequently I have chosen William Greider as my “Civics” professor.

I have finished my third book by William Greider this morning, “Who Will Tell the People.” I thought that to be a wonderful title for a book. I have been asking myself that same questions on many different subjects for many years. If you have also been wondering “Who Will Tell the People,” I think I can tell you quite sincerely that one of the people who will tell the people is certainly William Greider.

It is so rewarding when you find an honest, straightforward voice in this world of obfuscation and – for lack of a better word – pure bullshit.

On Mr. Greider’s web site he calls himself an old journalistic type – but Mr. Greider is much more than a Journalist. He is an educator; he is a teacher, an instructor; he is a professor. He has his Doctorate in personal experience in the affairs of the world – that becomes obvious as you follow along behind him.
In Who Will Tell the People we learn, among many other things, how our Democracy works ... or doesn’t work.

Mr. Greider tells us how the Democracy we think we have, lines up to the Democracy we really have.

He tells us about how the laws are made and then un-made. He tells us about the lobbyists, and the lawyers and the Democrats and the Republicans and the Repubocrats – and who owns each of them.

He tells us about the money, the big businesses, the banks, the international conglomerates.

He tells us about the environment; about the military and the pentagon; about who’s in, and who’s out, and why.

At various points in reading Mr. Greider I say to myself – This guy is giving me more than I really want to know. I mean the more I know, the worse it gets. But then he throws in a suggestion, an idea, a possible solution and once again I’m thinking positively.

I am basically a skeptic and I think of the “Power of Positive Thinking” as a prescription for dilution. But you have got to have some kind of hope, even if it is farfetched, distant and on the borders of impossibility. There must be something!
Mr. Greider brings us to the brink, then pushes us off.

Then half-way down, falling into the abyss of eternal despair, we find there is a bungee cord wrapped around our waist. It isn’t much, and the discovery is a little late and maybe not totally reassuring, but it helps.

This book was published in 1992, when we were beginning to talk of “peace dividends” and cutting back on the Military Industrial Complex. Listen to what Mr. Greider was saying way back then:

“The Defense Department was planning a modest five year reduction in the Cold War mobilization ... If the U.S. defense budget were cut in half, it would still be four or five times larger than that of the next strongest nation ... The next round of demobilization would be for real: bringing home troops that had been stationed abroad since the 1950s, closing scores of domestic military bases, shutting more factories ... A few liberals introduced “conversion” bills that did little more than encourage communities and industries to plan for their post-Cold War future. Conservative thinkers concentrated meanwhile, on trying to devise substitute “threats” – Third World terrorism or nuclear proliferation – that might justify continuing the nation’s permanent war footing.”

Chapter 15 of this book is entitled “Citizen GE.” This chapter alone is worth the entire price of the book.

My tendency is to tell you myself what Mr. Greider has to say, but I couldn’t tell the tale as well or with any greater poignancy. I can only tell you to get the book and read it for yourself.

It is not that GE is any worse or better than any of the others; it is more shocking to understand that they are just one of a bunch of like-acting and similar thinking Mega-mights.

If I wanted to continue quoting from this book, this review would be one hundred pages long.

My advice is to buy Mr. Greider’s books and study them. That’s what I’m doing. I’ve only read three thus far, but I know that I am already a world ahead of where I was less than a year ago. Mr. Greider is more than “a read.” He is an education. I feel so lucky to have found such a treasure.

2012-01-09T11:09:00.005-05:00

Collision Course

Ronald Reagan
The Traffic Controllers
And the strike that Changed America

By Joseph A. McCartin
Book Review

By Richard Edward Noble

I would guess that this is the most definitive history of the Traffic Controllers’ Strike yet to be written. Knowing what I know of American Labor History, it will probably be the only History of the Traffic Controllers’ Strike of 1981 that will ever be written.

I commend Mr. Joseph A. McCartin for performing this thankless and laborious task. Since I have become somewhat of a Labor history buff in recent years, this book will be added to my reference library along side the many others that I have been collecting for the last several years.

The history of American Labor problems in America is extremely limited and information difficult to find. The Reagan administration’s discontinuance of government statistical strike data will guarantee the difficulty of that task in future years.

I wrote my own book on the subject. It is entitled “America on Strike” and it is a survey of many prominent Labor strikes throughout American History. It begins in the Colonial period and ends with Ronald Reagan and the Traffic Controllers’ Strike. I ended my book with the Traffic Controllers’ Strike because like this author I figured it to be a big historical confrontation and devastating to the American Labor Movement.

My synopsis of the strike is a mere five pages long. I couldn’t find very much information on the Controllers’ Strike when I was putting my book together so when I saw this book, I jumped on it.

The author covers the formation of the PATCO union or association from its start in 1968 until it disintegration in 1981.

The book is thorough and informative. It is written from an inside the union perspective as opposed to an inside the Reagan administration perspective.

I couldn’t have asked for a more in depth analysis.

The history of the union and its leaders is covered intimately while all the while a focus is kept on the big confrontation with Ronald Reagan and his radical rightwing cohorts.

I will restrain myself from criticizing or picking arguments with the author other than to say, I feel he was a bit too kind and overly understanding of President Reagan and his administration.

That the president was hypocritical in his position against PATCO I consider a given.

That the goal of his administration was union busting is also a given. It is the confirmed historical position of the Republican Party and it cannot be denied in my opinion.

That the union was justified in all of its early positions is and has been substantiated.

The fact that the scabs who replaced the 15,000 fired workers no sooner got settled in than they formed their own union and petitioned the government with the exact same complaints the leaders of the PATCO union had presented, says it all.

Like his hero, Calvin Coolidge, the Reagan administration acted politically and not for the interest of his country. Coolidge and Reagan both benefited from their immoral political shenanigans quite favorably while the country suffered immensely – especially so with the Reagan fiasco.

Reagan used taxpayer dollars to fight tax paying workers in this flagrant union busting action. This cost the American people not just millions … but billions.

His use of replacement scab labor revived a horror from the past that if pursued by the Controllers in the traditional labor management format could have resulted in the loss of many lives.

An historical “gentleman’s” agreement had been set in place with regards to this issue. Reagan, in defying this understanding proved himself to be no gentleman and opened a kettle of worms that could and may ignite still glowing embers of acute bitterness in the historical oven of a seriously violent past. Be forewarned, this could mean the start of something BAD.

The Boston Police strike and President Coolidge’s stand remain a national historical disgrace.

Reagan and his posturing will be added to that historical disgrace, I have no doubt.

So other than the author somewhat leaning over backward in his analysis of the Reagan administration, I enjoyed the book immensely.

Mr. McCartin’s analysis on what could have been done by the union to possibly guarantee a successful outcome is thought provoking, thorough and should be read by all union activists and organizers still pursuing that difficult and heroic task today.

This is a very well written and extremely informative Labor history book. I highly recommend it.

2011-12-17T09:24:00.003-05:00

If you enjoyed this essay, you may also enjoy "Mein Kampf - An Analysis" and "America On Strike" also written by Richard Edward Noble.

Click on the book covers to the right on this page for more information. Thanks.

Private Property

My zone, your zone, our zone and the ozone.

by Richard E. Noble

The “History of the Great American Fortunes” by Gustavus Myers was used in this essay – a very interesting Radical analysis of this accepted American Right.

We hold sacred the Right to Private Property here in the United States. But this Right has not been without controversy. This notion once included the right to buy and sell other human beings and their children. It was also used by industrialist and Robber Barons alike to shoot their disgruntled workers and to deny them the right to organize and to bargain collectively for better working conditions and higher wages.

At one point in our history it applied to women and children. A man once owned his wife and children.

This Right to Private Property has also conflicted with the State and the Federal Government – Public Domain, Eminent Domain, National and State parks, National and State forests – roads, highways, interstate, damns, reservoirs etc.

On the international level, Private Ownership has been the divisive issue of the last two centuries. We define our current political systems by it:

Capitalism = Democracy + Private ownership
Socialism = Democracy + Public Ownership
Fascism = Dictatorship + Private Ownership
Communism = Dictatorship + Public Ownership

Conflicts with regards to public and private ownership are all around us today because of zoning laws and building codes and, of course, taxes. I’ve often wondered at what dollar amount a property tax turns into a rent. And considering the above definitions, when and if a property tax becomes so large that it is considered a rent; does Capitalism then evolve into Socialism? But even more interesting than that is the question of the basis and foundation of Private Property.

Private Property is based on a principle that, I think, no American would accept as fair, just, or even reasonable today.

Property has always been gained, from the beginnings of mankind’s times, through power, force and military might. The borders of countries have, for the most part, always been determined by conquests, invasions and war. Kings and power lords conquered and doled out property to their favorites. If there were people living on the property, they went with it. If you owned the property, you owned the people who lived on it also.

In the establishment of the American Colonies, we had what were called Patroons. The Patroons owned vast estates that were given to them by charters or grants or purchased from the Crown or others or that they finagled by deceit or fraud. It wasn’t until 1839 in New York that this manorial system was seriously challenged by the tenants who lived on and farmed the land. The land barons were forced by the revolt of the people and the New York Legislature in 1846 to sell off their estates in small farms to the people who lived and worked them. Of course, they sold off these vast estates at exorbitant prices, but nevertheless the tradition of small, individual, property ownership was enhanced.

Then the big money moved to the city. It was here that men like John Jacob Astor and industrialists like William “Billy” Wood and Andrew Carnegie, Pullman and bankers, like J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller Jr., turned the development of cities into their personal gold mines. Tenement housing, an apparent monetary triviality, turned into multi-million and billion dollar opportunities for their investment capital.

While Astor, and those of his unscrupulous agents and middlemen, got richer and richer, they turned the tenement factory worker communities into death traps for the poor and hard working. Diseases like typhoid fever, tuberculosis, cholera and others spread rapidly throughout the tenement communities. But the millions of dollars rolled in over the bodies of the poor until once again, as the rural tenant farmers had exploded in 1839; rebellion rankled in the streets and the tenement neighborhoods of Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia and Boston. The disgruntled and downtrodden, brought to the end of their faith in tolerance and acceptance, were finally motivated to risk their lives in the streets and back alleys. Somehow their protests were finally able to rouse the politicians, and laws began to evolve to protect the health and well being of the families living in these pits of American industrial revolutional squalor.

Astor and his super-wealthy friends then decided that it was time to give or dump the tenements onto the masses. The investment brokers would liquefy their assets. They sold their uncared for, unhealthy, vermin and rat invested, tenement disease incubators, before laws could be promoted requiring the landlords to spend some of their acquired millions to clean them up. It was a good business move. But once again, through a dark backdoor, the cause of individual ownership and private property was extended.

The prices of the tenements were high and exploitative, but somehow many hard working laboring families were able to become property owners – participants in the prized evolution of the propertied class.

Adolf Hitler dealt with the historical right to national territory and property rights – by way of Power and Might – extensively in his autobiography, Mein Kampf.
Adolf could not accept that a great nation, like his own, could be, cramped in such a tiny space in central Europe, while a much inferior nation like Russia had such a vast expanse of land to the west. He used the history of mankind to make his claim that the borders of any country are determined by the will of their peoples. Those with the will and the power, take; and those without the will and power are destroyed. To Adolf this was the fundamental principle of Civilization and an undeniable law of Nature – the survival of the fittest.

Russia and a good many other nations of the world disagreed. A catchy phrase of the period was – Might does not make Right. As far as I know, nobody wrote a book explaining why Might did not make Right but many people felt that the notion had merit – even if they didn’t know why. Adolf went ahead and tried to prove his point, but failed. At least he failed to prove that his people and his nation had the will and the power to establish their Might as Right. Whether or not Might actually does make Right still remains questionable, but, by no means, absolutely without foundation.

During a period called the Enlightenment, the world seemed to go through a sort of introspection and soul searching. Philosophers, social thinkers, economists, political reformers and the like all began to question the right of Private Property along with a good many other long established notions. William Godwin wrote a book, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice in 1793, and in the Colonies a controversial pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, wrote a piece that he entitled Agrarian Justice. Godwin questioned the whole idea of Private Property and Paine, accepting that Private
Property was a basic injustice, went on to devise an accommodation for property-less individuals.

An economist, Richard Ricardo, challenged property owners and the negative influence of their rents on the economy and wrote a book, Principles of Political Economy, challenging their moral and economic right to do so. He threw his support behind the new moneyed industrialist, entrepreneur and business community – he was a stockbroker by trade – and against the old, established class of property owner. He fought against the protective Corn Laws that were making land owners wealthy, claiming that these laws only served to increase wages, raise prices and create what is now called inflation. Ricardo, unintentionally, plants the first seeds of the class warfare which followed in later generations.

John S. Mill in his Political Economy – accepting Paine’s notion of the injustice of the un-propertied – tried to devise another solution. Paine had suggested that a tax should be placed on the propertied and that at the age of maturity every man without property would receive a cash inheritance as compensation. Mill suggested that the state would buy back from individuals all property and from then on, property would be rented or leased by the State. Henry George later expanded this idea into his Single Tax notion – but with no buy-back from the present property holders.

Then came Karl Marx and Frederick Engels who espoused an evolutionary theory of property that brought things back to Godwin. Their original idea was that private property would simply dissolve into an egalitarian utopia due to the inevitable collapse of Capitalism which would be prompted by the evolutionary destruction of monopolization. Lenin and others believed that this utopia was truly evolutional and inevitable, but evolution was just too slow. Lenin, and those who believed similarly, decided that the historical evolution of a classless, egalitarian economy needed the prodding of a benevolent dictator. True believing followers, like Joseph Stalin felt that benevolence was over-rated.

We no longer discuss the rights of the un-propertied or the moral justice of inheriting property, or people having too much property. We seem to have come to the notion that as long as a majority of individuals have the opportunity to work, save money, and buy their own piece of the planet – this is fair and just enough. The negative historical roots have all been put to the side, as beyond reclamation and practical justification.

Nevertheless, in recent years a return to introspection and moral and Agrarian Justice and soul searching has been revived. The exploitation and pollution of property and the planet has been suggested as morally unjust. There is now an argument between the property owner and the long term interests of random mankind.

Teddy Roosevelt had his preservation and set-aside notions which have given us our National Parks, forests and monuments. Today, we are now considering morally, environmentally and economically the use of an individual’s or developer’s property in relation to his neighbors – his community, his state, his country, the world – to future generations. It is the tree huggers against the libertarians.

Some go so far as to call this a revolution. The Green Revolution it is called. Peace and goodwill to man via clean water, clean air and socially correct balanced growth. The libertarians say these tree lovers are fanatics who care more about woodpeckers and brown-speckled, sap-sucking, bank climbing beetles than they do people. These people (tree huggers) hold Walt Disney as a god and fantasyland and Disney World in Orlando as a real possibility for the future of mankind and community development – these Libertarians say. And sometimes it is difficult to see if these Green revolutionaries are trying to make the world safer for people or fire ants.

On the other hand, if the libertarian has his way there may not be any more fire ants or people. We could revert back to cesspools of congested living, and rivers, lakes and oceans filled with green dyes, mercury, toxic chemicals, OIL, and non-edible, deformed, dying and disappearing sea creatures – not to mention, people (including Americans).

2011-12-13T10:27:00.004-05:00

If General Smedly Darlington Butler's understanding of War interests you, you may be interested in reading "Mein Kampf - An Analysis of Book One" by Richard Edward Noble.

General Smedley Darlington Butler

“The Plot to Seize the White House”

Written by Jules Archer

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

This book is basically a biography of General Smedley D. Butler. Once again I must admit my ignorance in stating that I had never heard of this General or this plot against Franklin Roosevelt or of the author Jules Archer.

General Butler as it turns out was quite well known in his day, the plot to seize the White house was investigated in Congress and Mr. Archer has written many successful books.

Smedley Butler was a Marine and quite a Marine he was. He is another great General from a Quaker background. His dad was a judge and served in the congress for 32 years.

Smedley fought in Cuba, in the Philippines, in Mexico, in Nicaragua, in Honduras, in Granada, in Haiti, in China, and in Europe during World War I. He served in the Marine Corps for 33 years and on August 21, 1931 in a speech before the American Legion convention in Connecticut he summed up his career with the following:

“I spent 33 years ... being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short I was a racketeer for capitalism ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
“In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested ... I had ... a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions ... I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents.”

And he went on.

As you can imagine he created quite a stir. But his marines loved him. They lined up everywhere to hear him speak and to shake his hand. He was under fire over 120 times in his career, wounded numerous times and had a chest full of medals – he was presented with the prestigious Medal of Honor twice. On the first presentation he sent it back saying that he didn’t deserve it. The Marine Corps sent it back to him and ordered him to wear it. So he did.

At his retirement at Quantico he gave his farewell speech to his beloved Leathernecks and said; “It has been a privilege to scrap for you just as you have scrapped for me ... When I leave I mean to give every one of you a map showing you exactly where I live. I want you to come around and see me, especially if you ever get into trouble and I will help you if I can. I can give you a square meal and a place to sleep even if I can not guarantee you a political job.”

He actually gave out maps and it is said that he lived up to all his promises.
He supported the 1932 Bonus Army and their march on Washington and the Hover government. The same group of World War I vets who were routed out of their cardboard shacks and tents by MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton brandishing their sabers and doing their duty to defend America against America’s past heroes.
General Butler supported Franklin Roosevelt and he had this to say in one of his speeches:

“Today, with all our wealth, a deathly gloom hangs over us. Today we appear to be divided. There has developed, through the past few years, a new Tory class, a group that believes that the nation, its resources and its manpower was provided by the Almighty for its own special use and profit ... on the other side is the great mass of American people who still believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
“This Tory group, through its wealth, its power and its influence, has obtained a firm grip on our government to the detriment of our people and the well being of our nation. We will prove to the world that we meant what we said a century and a half ago – that this government was instituted not only to secure to our people the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but the right to eat and to all our willing millions the right to work.”

He developed a really unique military strategy. He shook the press and all the big wigs up when he said that he would never again carry a gun on foreign soil. He went on to propose two Constitutional amendments. In the first he suggested that only those who were physically able to fight be allowed to vote on any war. In the second he suggested that our planes and ships guard our coastline exclusively. He wanted it to be an end to U.S. imperialism and foreign wars. He was even opposed to our entry into World War II.

This book then goes on to tell of a plot on the part of the disgruntled rich and wealthy in America to seize the U.S. Government via an organization of soldiers and World War I veterans and establish a Fascist Government, as had been done in Italy and Germany. Butler exposed the plot and named names – the Du Ponts, J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Pew, Mellon, Al Smith, John J. Raskob and others of the rich and prominent were all brought under the spotlight.

An investigation in Congress took place and, of course, all the charges were denied. No one was ever indicted or prosecuted, but all of Butler claims were verified and corroborated by the investigators. The plot was foiled by its exposure and the American people and its government was alerted to the danger.

2011-12-06T09:20:00.003-05:00

If you are interested in this subject and the "Jewish Problem," you might find my analysis of Book One of Mein Kampf interesting.

Click on cover of book to the right on this page for more information. Thanks.

Palestine

Peace not Apartheid

By Jimmy Carter

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

This book is a synopsis or outline of President Jimmy Carter’s many years of attempting to solve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

It is organized, simple, straightforward and to the point.

The Israeli Government was very upset with the ex-President’s analysis of the problem. I think this is because Mr. Carter views the Palestinians as justified, legal cohabiters in the right to ownership of the territory involved in this dispute rather than from the Israeli perspective that the Palestinians are terrorists and anarchists who are unfortunately living within the borders of Israeli lands whose goals include fomenting insurrection for the purposes of destroying and undermining the Israeli homeland and government. This is an obviously large gap in perspectives.

Jimmy starts the book with a brief analysis of all the countries involved. In a few short pages he describes each country and the stability and direction of their political systems. This was very enlightening to me. It was surely an oversimplification of each country, maybe even considered a caricature by experts, but perfect for the purposes of those of us who are not educated in the modern history of the various countries involved and only know what we “read in the papers”and hear on the nightly news.

The book contains an appendix with all the various resolutions and compromises that have been suggested and sometimes agreed to over the years.
Mr. Carter’s analysis is cold and blunt. If the President has a defect it is probably his inability to temper what he considers the truth.

The book is not filled with belly laughs but I did get an occasional smile. Like when he spoke to a group of Israelis at a political forum in Israel and mentioned to his audience that he was surprised that the questions from the Israeli audience received considerably more applause than his answers. And after you have read the book the reason will be clear.

The Book closes with The President’s …

Bottom Line: “Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of the majority of its own citizens – and honor its own commitments – by accepting its legal borders. All Arab neighbors must pledge to honor Israel’s right to live in peace under these conditions. The
United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories.

"It will be a tragedy – for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world – if peace is rejected and a system of oppression, apartheid, and sustained violence is permitted to prevail.”

After reading this book and several others on the subject I have a personal and much more cynical bottom line.

I think that peace will come to that area when either the Palestinians or the Israelis vacate the area and find another home.

The Israelis are not leaving and they never will. Israel is the Jewish last stand. They will do whatever they feel is necessary to survive ... whatever!

The Palestinians receive token and guilt money from their Arab brothers but no Arab country wants the Palestinians in their territory. They have been chased out of every country in the area that has been strong enough to do so. Even their Arab brothers wish that they would disappear.

The Palestinians should cut their losses, take as much land as they can negotiate and petition the Israelis and the governments of the world for as much money as they can get in the name of world peace.

I feel the world and even Israel and the U.S. would be willing to commit substantial amounts.

With that land and money they should build themselves a country of their own where all Palestinians are welcome.

Whether they have been treated justly or not is no longer of any concern.

2011-12-05T17:09:00.003-05:00

If you enjoy this economic essay on minimum wage and its perils to society and the wealthy, you may enjoy "Hobo-ing America" by Richard Edward Noble.

Click on cover to the right of this page for more information on "Hobo-ing America" and living on minimum wage ... for real.

What’s Wrong with Minimum Wages?

Why Don’t We Just Leave the Well-off Alone?

By Richard E. Noble

I have worked for minimum wage or below for the majority of my employment career - which started when I was about ten years old. I have always known that it is because of me that the world, at large, and the U.S. in particular, has been going to hell in a handbag. My bosses have explained this to me over and over.

You see, it is because of my demanding this exorbitant minimum wage that we have inflation, constantly escalating prices, unemployment, teenagers idling on street corners and a vanishing industrial and manufacturing base.

Strangely enough, people who make exorbitant paychecks and profits as owners of businesses and CEOs and CFOs, and Doctors, Lawyers, Dentists, Stock brokers, people receiving dividends from their stock portfolios and Indian chiefs who own gambling casinos in Miami have just the opposite effect on the economy. Their pay increases do not cause inflation or increase prices; instead their extra money acts as a stimulus to the economy, promotes investment at home and abroad, creates jobs everywhere and, in general, makes the world a better place for everybody to live.

It goes like this: if you give Michael Jordan or some such wealthy person another billion dollars a week, as opposed to giving another dollar a week to each employee at the Nike factory in Slumbovia, or Bumslavia, or Weallstarvingistan - nothing negative, economically, occurs. Prices do not go up because Michael Jordan or another among the minority of the rich has more money. They already have everything they ever wanted. They don’t need to buy anything. How many Hummers, BMWs, yachts, and diamond rings can one person have? Besides if the price of a quarter mile long yacht goes from 147 million to 150 million who would notice. This increase wouldn’t even make it into the pages of Money Magazine.

You can give all the money you want to rich people and nothing in the economic world will change. This is an economic fact that was proven in the laboratory of real life economic science in 1929 by that great American monetary savant, Herbert Hoover. And in recent times this miracle was duplicated by G.W. Bush – another economic genius.
On the other hand, an extra dollar in the pockets of a bunch of poor people automatically throws any economy into a tailspin. Right off, the price of M-D 20-20 skyrockets along with bread, peanut butter, and Chevrolet automobiles. This hits the commodity and retail markets immediately. The price of grain and legumes all over the world goes nuts. Farmers instantly begin double cropping, planting in-between the rows, and doubling up on fertilizers and polluting pesticides; government subsidies go through the roof, while profits to the farmers go down and the price of a tomato at the IGA in Wisconsin goes to a buck-fifty apiece. General Motors has to increase production, but the cost of labor in the U.S. is bankrupting them; so their new plant in China gets the contract while the DuPont family sells off all of their shares in Aunt Jemima Pancakes. It’s chaos.

If I, and those of my ilk, were willing to work for half or one third of minimum wage, my boss then could hire two or three more morons like me and, of course, the unemployment problem would vanish. This would also, more than likely, solve the illegal immigrant problem besides.

You see, if I were willing to pick tomatoes and sleep in an abandon building or old slave cottage or a farmer’s barn or root cellar while defecating in the woods or orchards or behind the hedges of better-off people in the San Bernardino mountains like illegal immigrants do, then the farmers would not have to encourage Coyotes to smuggle poor Mexicans and Central Americans across the Rio Grande and into Miami, Seattle, New York, New Jersey and Kalamazoo, Michigan. Nor would they have to continue to falsify their labor and Social Security reports.

But because I, and others like me, are unwilling to do this, these poor farmers and packing house owners, and cottage-garment industry sweat-shop owners, and restaurant and construction company owners and landscapers, and concrete company and gas station owners, and grocery stores, and chicken and beef processing houses, and home cleaning and domestic services, and large chain department stores etc., all have to do all of these illegal, immoral things.

We minimum wage earners are like the pornographic video and bookstores in Holyoake, Missouri – we are the evil temptresses that lure the Jimmy Swaggarts and Tammy Faye Bakers into the snake pit of moral depravity; we are the Chunky Cheeses to the video game addict; we are the irresistible impulse luring the unsuspecting all over the world – we are the ones who are ruining the economic world. It is us, with our benign satisfaction with mediocrity, or unwillingness to achieve, and our ignorant and obstinate choice to remain unsuccessful.

Why is it that we continually choose to work at JR stores, and wash dishes in greasy-spoon type restaurants who provide no health insurance? Why do we continually take up residence in crime ridden ghettos? Why the heck don’t we just move? Why don’t we make application to better universities? Why do we accept advice and principles from parents who are even dumber than we are?

All of our kind hearted, generous employers are, of course, very good people; they are not criminals. They are as responsible and as civic minded as any banker, for god’s sake! It’s us; it’s me. And, you know, I don’t know what is wrong with me. I don’t know why I act like this. I have tried to get help for this problem but I have been unable to find any psychiatrists who are willing to work for minimum wage. They feel that if they work for any less than one hundred dollars a minute, research in mental health will be abandoned and more nutty folks, like myself, will be put out onto the sidewalks and alleyways of the American inner cities. This, of course, will increase the perv quotient, promote crime, juvenile delinquency and the threat of terrorism everywhere.

It was because of people like me, way back when, demanding their pays to be raised to a minimum that forced the textile mills to leave New England. It was the same type of ugly Americans in the Midwest and eventually in the South that forced these poor, patriotic hard working mill owners to go to South America, India and Asia where now, unfortunately, they are forced to deal with the same type ungrateful breed over there. We minimum wage earners keep breeding like flies – there seems to be no end to our kind.

What is the matter with us minimum wage workers? When will we ever learn?
If we continually ask for more money, this just makes the prices of things rise; and after the prices go up, we still don’t have any more money than we used to have. So what is the sense to it? What will it take for us to learn that we must figure out how to live on whatever it is that the boss is willing to pay us?

We certainly can’t ask the bosses to take less money. Why just look around, they are barely getting by on what they have now. And besides, there are so few of them and so many of us. I mean, if we took all the money from the 10% who own and control everything – all the rich people in the world – and divided it up among all the poor in the world, the price of peanut butter and jelly in the U.S. would be a thousand dollars a jar. M-D 20-20 would only be served at fine restaurants. Golf courses would disappear and America would become one huge bowling alley. Yes, every other cardboard house that the poor have built in the garbage dumps of the world might get a new tin roof – big deal.

Poor people just don’t seem to understand, if God wanted poor people to be better off, He wouldn’t have created Conservatives.

2011-12-01T20:32:00.004-05:00

If you find this book interesting, you may also find my two books "America on Strike" and "Mein Kampf - Analysis of Book One" to be of equal interest. Thanks.

Click on book covers to the right on this page for more information.

Declaration of a Heretic

By Jeremy Rifkin

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I’ve taken a recent interest in books by Jeremy Rifkin. He has written several. “Declaration of a Heretic” is my second. My first was “The End of Work.” I have already posted that review.

In this book Mr. Rifkin presents his case against science – a difficult challenge to say the least.

He concentrates his attack on the two most significant breakthroughs of the 20th century: the splitting of the atom which ushered in the Atomic Age and the discovery of the double helix that brought the dawning of the Genetics Age.

“To cast these discoveries aside. To let languish the concepts that gave rise to them. To abandon the line of intellectual thought that led up to them. To say no to the human motivation that inspired them. For the true believers, the staunch upholders of the existing orthodoxy, such thought qualify as heresy.”

And so the challenge begins.

The author brings us all the way back to the Bible to trace the beginnings of this dilemma and the human penchant for learning and science. He reminds us that Adam and Eve bit of the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. Knowledge and learning were the human curse plaguing mankind according to our Christian theological roots.

Now expelled from the Garden of Eden man would be forever condemned to live in constant fear of death and as a consequence of this angst he would be driven to seek security and perpetual life here on earth. Knowledge would lead to power and power would provide security and eventually life ever lasting.

Now science comes to the foreground.

“The Apostles of truth are no longer Peter, Paul, John, Mark and Luke. They are Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Locke and Darwin.”

We then dabble into Greek Mythology by touching onto Epimetheus and Prometheus.

“Prometheus noticed that Epimetheus had already distributed all the qualities at his disposal to the rest of the plants and animals. Not wanting to leave human beings totally unprotected, Prometheus stole the mechanical arts and fire from the gods and gave them to man and women.”

To the above scientific mix we add Adam Smith. We then proceed from Bacon to Descartes to Newton, to Smith to Darwin.

Bacon gave us the scientific method with his monumental work “Novum Organum.”
Descartes turned humans into machines and the universe into a mathematically predictable set of numbers and equations. “Give me extension and motion and I will construct the universe.”

Newton with his forces and gravity further reduced the universe to a matter of formulated laws of matter and motion.

“Locke concluded that each individual was like an isolated bit of matter in the universe with no goal than to perpetuate itself.”

Locke contended that “the negation of nature is the way towards happiness.”
Adam Smith then came and put the whammy on everything by claming that “it is only by each individual attempting his own material advantage that the common good of society is advanced.”

“Smith claimed to have discovered a natural law, the invisible hand, which he said automatically regulated the supply and demand of scarce resources among all the members of society.”

This type thinking brought us to the mandate of today’s modern civilization … efficiency.

If we will to be secure we must be efficient at all costs. Knowledge = power = control = security, which leads us all to cower beneath the dictates of efficiency and the efficiency gurus who now rule the world.

This book moves along asking all the biggest questions. Are we better off today because of the splitting of the atom or the discovery of the double helix? Has science truly been the benefactor of mankind or its nemesis? Or is it like most other things a blessing and a curse simultaneously?

If science does indeed have its negative and detrimental sides should we not be looking at it with a more reflective eye towards the damage it has done and to what can prevent further damage to man’s future on this tentative planet?

What is more important, efficiency, production and unlimited profits or human involvement, live sustaining jobs and the quality of our environment and human existence?

We now have the power via science and the splitting of the atom to explode the human race and this planet to extinction.

By way of our new scientific discoveries in biology, chemistry and genetic engineering we now have the capacity to reconstruct agriculture and human nature. Like Mrs. Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein from the annals of science fiction, we evolve to a real world in which the species barrier is not even a problem.

Today via genetic engineering we can construct crops and barnyard animals that have never existed previously. We already have a combination goat and sheep concoction and a mouse that has been injected with human hormone that the geneticists have named Mighty Mouse. It sounds rather funny but it is much more frightening than it is humorous.

We not only have the potential to do this, it is being done right now in the world around us. And it is being supervised, regulated and controlled by nobody. It has all been turned over to the so called free market. Which means it is entirely in the hands of the for-profit business community.

The oil companies have a bacteria they have spliced together in the lab that will eat oil slick. They are afraid to use it. They don’t really know what it can do.
Could it eat up all the oil reserves in the world and then present us with uncontrollable bacteria with totally unpredictable genetic possibilities? Could it combine with other natural things and produce other possibilities with no antidote.

If this were not bad enough the geneticists are now capable of cutting and pasting a new human being. A total prefabricating of human nature may be in the future. Man is attempting to scientifically take over the process of creation. A new horror along the eugenics line, may well be in our not too distant future.

When scientists first learned that it was possible to split the atom many of them standing at the testing grounds wondered if they were not in the process of totally destroying the planet. They were all not positive that the developing chain reaction that they were about to release could be stopped. They stood trembling for all mankind, but yet went forward with the test.

We were lucky that time. Will our luck continue with these new areas of discovery? Do we want to take such chances today? Wouldn’t it be wiser to put some rules and control into place?

But who will make these rules, Governments or capitalists?
The choices are on top of us. What do we do? What should we do?

The author is an optimist and a utopian of sorts. He gives us his cure for this mounting catastrophe.

This is another more than thought provoking work by Mr. Jeremy Rifkin. I would suggest everyone read it.

To say that this little book provides “much food for thought” would be grossly understating its importance.

Find out for yourself.

Get a copy of “Declaration of a Heretic.” Read it. Think about it.

It is up to us to decide if and how we and our planet will survive.

The future is here and it is scary.

2011-11-27T13:10:00.005-05:00

For more information about "Hobo-ing America" click on the cover of the book to the right on this page. Thanks

Hobo-ing America

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

This was the most exciting adventure in our lives and despite all the conversation, very few people actually do what Carol and I did. We sold everything we owned, including Carol’s little MG Midget; bought a van and hit the road, Jack. We left our secure lives in 1976 and the adventure never stopped. I was managing restaurants and Carol was a reparatory therapist working the emergency room at a Miami hospital.

When our initial adventure capital ran out, we were reading the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. We were inspired. Why couldn’t we get crazy migrant/hobo type jobs and continue traveling across America? We did. And that is where this book begins – in a farm labor bureau employment office in California. We were signing up to go “top onions” with all the poor contract laborers and illegal immigrants. The interviewer thought we were nuts.

I subtitled this book “a workingman’s adventure.” That is not quite fair to Carol who also lived a “workingman’s” life. She didn’t sit back at the van baking cupcakes (though, she does bake good cupcakes and bread too). She climbed 20 ft. ladders to pluck oranges from the top of thorny oranges trees; she tonged oysters from the bottom of Apalachicola Bay; she topped onions crawling around on her hands and knees in the desert-like sun of southern California. She did a “man’s” work, as they say.

We are both now well into our 60’s and as I review this book and our adventure, I must say I found a girl who was one in a million. Carol can gripe with God over what she was given but I certainly have no justified complaints on the girl he sent to me.
We had so much fun on this adventure that I felt compelled to write a book about it.
Our adventure began in 1976 and ended in an ice cream parlor in Carrabelle Florida in the year 2000. That’s where the book ends but our adventure is still in progress.

Deciding to pack up and leave Fort Lauderdale and our steady, dependable jobs and lives to have a little adventure before we were too old to enjoy it, was truly a monumental decision. It changed our lives and it changed us … for the better.

When I compare this to other travel books and I have read them all – On the Road by Jack Kerouac or Charles Karualt, Mark Twain’s many travel books, the Dove, Walking Across America, Blue Highways, Travels with Charlie by John Steinbeck, Notes from a Small Island by Bill Bryson, I think Hobo-ing America stands out as somewhat unique.

We worked our way around this country. We weren’t on a sabbatical or a scholarship. We weren’t getting a check from National Geographic. We worked and we worked hard doing jobs that better-off Americans wouldn’t do on a dare.

There are only two other books that I think compare with Hobo-ing America in this regard, Two Years before the Mast by William Henry Dana and Pages from a Worker’s Life by William Z. Foster. Those two guys also put in some sweat.

This is a fun book. It is written as Mark Twain advised, without the author forgetting his sense of humor. We had great fun and met bunches of loveable and very interesting people. It was the experience of a lifetime for both Carol and I.

We both hope you will buy a copy and enjoy reading it.

And good luck on your adventure.

2011-11-27T11:16:00.004-05:00

You can find more of this type thinking and analysis in either "Noble Notes on Famous Folks" or "Mein Kamp - An Analysis of Book One." For more information on either of these books click on the book covers on the right on this page. Thanks.

The Problems of Philosophy

Bertrand Russell

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

Bertrand has written on many different subjects and many of his books can often appeal to the general reader. This book is for those interested in philosophy and who enjoy esoteric arguments. It is for the person with and average philosophical interest and not necessarily the Ph.D. candidate. It is not a difficult book but some of the problems discussed seem rather unimportant from my perspective ... but?
The first problem is Appearance and Reality. This gets into the Bishop Berkeley school of thought which has never much appealed to me. I realize that appearances can be deceiving but to jump to the notion that reality and matter really do not even exist is a little much for me. To start talking about things only having existence in the mind of God when no one can establish that a God exists and if he did exist how he could possibly have a mind is out in right field to me.
The chapter begins by asking if there is any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it. The chapter ends telling us that Leibniz believes that matter is a community of souls and Berkeley tell us that matter is an idea in the mind of God and sober science tells us that matter is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
The conclusion is that maybe matter doesn't exist after all, and is really only appearances or what seems to be … a mirage, a delusion, a conjuring of the human mind.
The second chapter discusses the Existence of Matter. We immediately get into Descartes discovering himself and expand into the notion that maybe only Descartes exist and all else is the product of his imagination.
Bertrand then tells us that if we wish to become philosophers we must be willing to tackle the absurd. Obviously! By the end of this chapter the author assures us that there is something in the universe besides our comprehension of ourselves and our dreams. There does seem to be "reality" or matter even if it is perceived differently or inadequately by each of us.
The next chapter discusses the Nature of Matter. As we try to figure out what matter is, we discover that we cannot separate ourselves and our methods of perception from the investigation. This problem has led some philosophers (i.e. Berkeley and Leibniz) to conclude that matter really does not exist and is more a case of mistaken identity. Bertrand disagrees and promises us his reasoning in the future chapter.
This chapter is entitled Idealism. Bertrand once again warns us about dismissing the apparently absurd. I wonder why? But from my perspective to say that something does not exist because I am not viewing it correctly or with total objectivity or accuracy is rather absurd. But we will persist.
Bertrand goes on to tell us that the Bishop Berkeley made valid arguments that confirm that our sense data cannot have an existence independent of us. (Yeah? But the object of our senses can exist in and of themselves whether we can sense them or not.) Berkeley then concludes that matter can then only exist in the mind of the observer or some Infinite observer.
Once again, in my opinion we are back to the absurd and a rather advanced egocentricity. Bertrand then explains that the Bishop has confused the thing apprehended with the act of apprehension.
No kidding! It seems that Mr. Berkley thinks that his seeing something gives that something its existence. I'm sorry – is this really worth all this discussion? Isn't this just foolishness?
Bertrand then states that Berkeley's notion that the objects apprehended must be mental has no validity whatsoever. I agree but then why are we wasting so much time on Mr. Berkley? I guess that it is because if we want to be philosophers we must not dismiss the absurd.
Sartre also spent a lot of time and space analyzing this confusion in his book Being and Nothingness. After a while he also boarders on the absurd. The trouble with discussing things that are absurd is that eventually you will also become absurd and very possibly irrelevant.
In the next chapter we get into knowledge and how we learn things. We learn of Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description. This seems rather basic – you know something because of your personal experience with that thing or you know of it because it has been described or explained to you.
In the next chapter we get into learning by induction or inductive learning. This is predictable expectation based on past uniformity. The sun will probably rise tomorrow because of our knowledge of what the sun has done in the past. No guarantee but a good indicator.
Next we discuss experience and a priori knowledge. Some things we know because of our experience and others we know because of general principles – nothing can both be and not be; whatever is, is; everything must either be or not be.
Bertrand then states that Immanuel Kant is generally regarded as the greatest of the modern day philosophers. I didn't know that.
How a priori knowledge is possible is the next discussion. This is somewhat difficult when we start analyzing two plus two but that something either is or it isn't seems clear enough. When we get into "numbers" I have a problem.
Numbers are not "things" they are contrived representations of quantities of things. To state that mathematics is a priori knowledge of some sort is confusing to me. Obviously this a priori and synthetic stuff is an area where I need to read more. Numbers are all contrived as far as I am concerned. And any relation between them is learned or gained by previous induction episodes of learning. That numbers or mathematics has some sort of a priori significance, I don't get.
When we get into universals and Plato we seem to be returning to Berkley and the realm of the absurd. Universals can be confusing but once again when we start believing that there actually exists a universal concept of a head or a chair or a wall or a dog or whatever we are going bonkers. What exists is my head, your head and his head not a head. This is another area that has been problematic to philosophers but not to anyone else.
Now we come to intuitive knowledge and things that are self-evident. This chapter I don't understand. Self-evident seems simple enough – something is there or it isn't there. Intuitive knowledge?
Now we come to truths and falsehoods. But for my dollar truth is what is. But I'm talking "matter" and fact. Bertrand wants to talk about statements. This statement is true and this statement is false. In which case truth depends on some correspondence between belief and fact. As we all know this can get very complicated and debatable. "The greater part of what would commonly pass as knowledge is more or less probable opinion," says Mr. Russell.
The next chapter deals with those that think that we can know more than we actually can know and with those who think, on the other hand, that nothing is knowable – Hegel in the first case and Hume in the latter.
Finally we come to the nature of philosophy and its value. Philosophy deals in questioning the unknown and once the unknown becomes known it is no longer called philosophy but science. So philosophy has a rather nebulous list of achievements. Bertrand closes this book with this final paragraph:
"Thus to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good."
Well that, of course, states the case better than anything that I could say but for my part I must offer something.
I have always been attracted to philosophy because the philosophers were asking the questions that seemed important to me and by reading and studying their answers I always felt that I was learning how to think and reason intelligently and logically. By being able to think intelligently and logically I felt that I was then better equipped to solve the problems of life – my life in particular.

2011-11-22T18:16:00.004-05:00

After reading the Big Squeeze by Steven Greenhouse, try "Hobo-ing America" for something a little lighter or "America on Strike" for something heavier. Thanks.

For more information on either of my books click on book covers to the right of this page. Thanks again.

The Big Squeeze

By Steven Greenhouse

Book Review

By Richard Edward Noble

In William Grieder’s book “One World Ready or Not,” Mr. Grieder takes us on a trip around the world. We visit the homes and workplaces of everyday workers of all types. We see up close and personal how they are being used and exploited by the new Globalism and the international business community. We get all points of view but when we see the same thing happening over and over all around the world, we can not help but to realize that these are not the exceptions but the abusive manner in which the world is being operated.

The Big Squeeze by Steven Greenhouse is a door to door stop and visit with workers all over America who are being used and abused in a similar fashion. In this work we see the domestic pattern.

I have seen the same type things and experienced the same disrespect as a workingman all my life. But I always considered it just a matter of my personal bad luck. I realize after reading this book, “The Big Squeeze” that it wasn’t just me. It wasn’t just a bad company here and there. It wasn’t just a selfish employer that I happened to stumble upon. It is the way our country and our world has been heading for most of my life.

Because of my personal experiences as outlined in, “Hobo-ing America” and “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother,” I was led to do my own research and produce other works, “America on Strike,” and “Mein Kampf – An Analysis of Book One.”

My own works exhibit different aspects of this same sad story – the abusive treatment and total disrespect for working people that permeates our society and the globe.

I understand clearly that for every dissatisfied worker in any situation there are considerably more who are at the moment contented.

Even during the Great Depression when our nation was experiencing 30 and 40 percent unemployment, 6 or 7 out of every ten workers still had a job. As a consequence FDR was forced to subsidize photographers to go out and take pictures of soup lines and the homeless and unemployed all over America. Men, women and children who were down and out and even starving all over this country were suddenly made visible via newsreels and local newspapers and magazines.

These pictures had to be exhibited to the general public to prove to the working Americans who were lucky enough to still be employed that America was experiencing a serious economic problem.

Today unemployment has not reached Great Depression standards but we may be witnessing the preliminary stages.

In the Big Squeeze we see how the fear of unemployment and falling back from the “middle class” into the ranks of the poor is being used by employers to take unfair advantage of working people. Many of the stories in this book are horrendous. They go beyond just taking advantage and enter into the category of cruel and unusual. These Corporations and Companies are immoral without question.
But people do not go to prison for being immoral in America. All one can do is expose their immoral behavior and polices and hope that a majority will agree and be spurred on to action at the polls or in the streets if necessary.

The names and the companies are documented. The author tells the reader the home addresses of many of the bad guys – not the individuals but the corporations and their policies. You will recognize their names.

The biggest value of this book to me was to read and understand that it wasn’t just me. What I saw throughout my working career was commonplace. My experiences were not individual and unique. I was one among millions of other Americans who were waging their individual wars and fighting for their personal rights and self respect.

I realize now after reading this book, that if we all knew one another and were able to share our individual experiences we could have formed the largest worker rights advocate group that ever existed. But we didn’t … and unfortunately we still don’t. But maybe the time has come.

I have certainly been luckier than many of the people in this book. But I have had equal or worse experiences than some. My Johnny Paycheck philosophy of “take this job and shove it” I now realize saved me many years of potential misery.

The bottom line: the tactics and practices outlined in this book must be stopped. They can only be stopped if more working people know that what is and has been happening to them is not an anomaly but a policy and a practice of many companies in the business sector here and around the world – and these policies and practices are spreading. We can not let all the safeguards working Americans have fought for, for decades be eradicated by the false excuses proffered on behalf of Globalism or some misguided concept of supposed economic reality.

Globalism does not have to be synonymous with immorality and cruelty. There is no excuse for immoral, cruel, abusive behavior no matter what the economic situation.
This has got to stop.

2011-11-20T13:12:00.003-05:00

Another masterpiece from the Bard of Chelmsford off Arlington.

This selection is from my first book of poetry "A Little Something."

For more information on this unique book of poetry click on book cover to the right on this page. Thanks.

I’M A STUBBORN OLD MULE

I’m a stubborn old mule,
As stubborn as they come.
A rail between the eyes is the only thing
That’ll make me run.

He doesn’t pat me gently on the brow,
Or say, “Come now friend, a little further now.”
No, No! It’s a beam between the eyes,
And a roaring scream and cry,
As he pushes and shoves with venom for an eye,
And brutality frothing in his unpatient sigh.

He has no memory of the burden I bore,
When I carried him, his gold, and a mountain of store.

He forgets how on the side of cliffs I trod,
As he cowered and crazed and cursed his God.

He has no memory of the thirst I craved,
Carrying his drink to an early grave.
He’s a brave man, who went down in books,
A crusty determined miner.
And I, who braved his dirty looks,
Hefted the load of gold for my forty-niner.

Ah yes, a brave man was he,
But he wouldn’t have a nickel if it weren’t for me.

But I’m a stubborn old mule,
And as dumb as can be.
But the old bastard wouldn’t have a nickel,
If it weren’t for the likes of me.

Carried him where his pretty horses wouldn’t go,
Through mountains, and deserts, and fields of snow.
But, in his fancies, he dreams of a saddle
And a golden mane,
His pretty little horses,
Dining on sacks of expensive grain.

But for his trusty, dusty steed, forever at his side,
It’s a drunken mumble, and tempered lash,
And another scar in my hide.

Many a day, when I’d had enough,
I sat in the middle of the road,
And laughed as he stammered and huffed and puffed.
Oh, how he wished to shoot me...
But who would carry the load?

Yes, many a time I wouldn’t go on.
But does he remember how I danced
On the edge of a cliff,
As he trembled and gasped, and for his life hung on.
A man of might, and right and power and gain,
And as he drunk his whiskey and barked to the stars,
I stood by quietly in the snow and the rain.

I’m as stubborn as a mule,
As stubborn as they come.
A rail between the eyes is the only thing
That’ll make me run.

I carry his load, sure footed I go,
But when I’ve had enough of his rum drenched batter,
I pull up, take a seat, and listen to his chatter.

The other day, in a fit of rage,
He pulled his rifle from my side.
“Move along, you stubborn old bastard,
Or I’ll shoot you right here,
And then tan your damn hide.”

I yawned, then lifted my head and brayed.
I curled my lips, then bared my broken teeth.
And when he shouldered his gun, I stared into the breech.
I felt the powder as it burnt my eye,
And a dull thud as a jolt from hell pierced my skull,
And I fell there onto my side.

But I’m a stubborn old mule,
As stubborn as they come.
I laid there with his pack and store,
And stared up at his eye.
And I’m proud to say, I hung there waitin’ to die,
Long enough to see the dumb bastard
Put down his rifle and cry.

Yes, I’m a stubborn old mule,
As stubborn as they come.
It takes a rail between the eyes
To get me up to run.
But when you have a load too tough to hold,
It’s a call for the likes of me.
And I bear it well, sure footed and determined,
Right to the rim of hell.
But what he can’t stand,
Is that I’m a bit of a man.
And, as the man, I have my pride,
And how I tried, and tried, and tried.
But, oh how glad I am that when I came to die
I was beast enough to make the bastard cry...
Yes, beast enough...
To make that bastard cry.

2011-11-18T10:06:00.003-05:00

For more thoughts and ideas on how to cure the world and learn from historical mistakes consider these two books also: Mein Kampf - An Analysis of book one; America on Strike. Click on covers on right of this page for more information. Thank-you.

William Greider

One World Ready or Not

[Some thoughts for curing the Capitalist World]

by Richard E. Noble

I read a book by a Mr. William Greider, “One World Ready or Not”. On the back cover of his book it states that he is the National Editor of the Rolling Stone. I thought that was a magazine about Mick Jagger and other horribly disfigured people who have made a success of promoting the concept of noise around the world.

I consider this book an economics book - but it is not a compilation of difficult theories. It is a vivid and insightful description of what is going on around the world, with chapter after chapter of everyday life descriptions. It is about the New Global Capitalism - the privatization of the world.

Mr. Greider’s book is a primer on getting up to speed on what is presently happening in world economics. I consider it to be very intelligent and well thought; especially for a man who I presume spent the early part of his life following the Grateful Dead - the Rolling Stone Magazine, you will remember.

When I reflect on Mr. Greider’s book one of the many things that comes to my mind is a problem that he pointed out in the conclusion.

In a world of, more or less, dedicated Capitalism where supply and demand and profit-making are the sole motivation for investment and action, how does necessary but non-profitable “good” happen?

For example, you are a Capitalist Doctor in a Capitalist world. You are riding along the highway and you stumble upon an accident. Many people are lying along side the road bleeding and injured. You quickly discover that these people have no insurance and no money to pay for the necessary supplies, never mind your expertise, training and college loan. With Capitalism and supply and demand as your guide, how do you devise a profitable system or method for their care?

Charity is not a system or method of Capitalism, it is a band aid. Charity is a notion that drains off the goodwill of Capitalism. It stands out as a flaw in the Capitalistic dogma, not as a positive attribute. Charity only becomes necessary because Capitalism has failed. Charity doesn’t make a profit. It is not a business. We can’t depend on Charity as an economic tool.

The notion that people should all be pursuing their own personal good does not help our good Samaritan dogmatic Capitalistic Doctor.

As a Capitalist he must devise some sort of rationale whereby he can gain a profit from the suffering and tragedy he has encountered.

How does Capitalism feed the hungry who have no money to buy food, even if the Capitalist can produce sufficient quantities; how does Capitalism provide Aids medication to those with no money to pay even for its manufacture? How does Capitalism provide a profitable avenue for environmental safety when clearly polluting pays? How can profit-making provide living wages to workers when providing living wages means less profit and higher prices? The list where Capitalism has traditionally provided no answers goes on and on.

In the past, governmental socialism has been the safety valve of the Capitalist World. When the going gets tough the taxpayer takes over – that’s socialism, not Capitalism.

In the United States, back in the Wilson days, when the banks kept collapsing, the government and the taxpayer stepped in with the Federal Reserve System (Banker Socialism). When the Depression struck, it was Government Socialist spending that stepped in to save the day. Even if you say it was World War II that saved the economy, it was not the killing and the destruction that saved the world from the Depression; it was the government spending on the war effort that produced the jobs, that supplied the wages, that turned around the spending, that stimulated the investment, that paid the soldiers, that built the middle class, that saved the house that George (Washington - not Bush) built.

We didn’t need World War II to save us from the Depression; we needed unlimited Government spending on a project that satisfied the moral work ethos of the people of the world. Any project would have done the trick, a pyramid or two, an aqueduct, an interstate highway system, a man on the moon.

Why can’t the project to save the world and stimulate Capitalistic spending be something morally sound; as opposed to something architectural, or industrial or totally destructive, as War?

When Europe had no money to buy products from the Capitalist world, we gave them the money.

We said that the Marshall Plan was a loan but most of the Marshall Plan money was never paid back. So, in effect, we made TVs and refrigerators – financed Europe’s reconstruction – for people and governments who could not afford to buy these products or materials.

We gave them the money to buy them; we gave them the money to manufacture their own TVs and refrigerators; pretty soon their economies were flourishing and they were selling us TVs and refrigerators. We had to start producing other things here at home to employ our own people to fill new markets from a more demanding world. I even hear Republicans today bragging on this world wide socialistic welfare project called – the Marshall Plan.

Why could this same technique not be used in curing the world of hunger or disease?
If people in Slumbovia need food, we loan (lend/lease) them the money, then sell them the food (deferred loan payback option - lOUs). Once they start eating more regularly, we loan (lend/lease) them some more money and start selling them some tractors. Pretty soon they are growing their own food and manufacturing their own tractors and we are selling them fertilizers, tractor parts and engineering expertise, and they are standing in line to buy tickets to Disney World. And all the while we are paying Henry Ford the II, 3rd. or 4th to manufacture this stuff.

Henry then gives everybody a raise at the factory and takes on more employees – just like we did in World War II. The only difference is we don’t have all the dead bodies and all the bombed out building to rebuild. Instead we start housing developments in Slumbovia. Pretty soon everybody is doing so well, we simply cancel all their debt obligations (call it a tax rebate to stimulate the trade balance, encourage consumption and new investment). The Donald moves to Slumbovia to find a new apprentice and he takes Martha Stewart with him. How can we lose?

There is a lot of world out there to be made prosperous and a lot of money to be made supplying the initial investments, the knowledge and the know how. If it works for war, and the Military Industrial Complex, why can’t it work for peace and refrigerators?

If this concept can work for refrigerators, TVs and even hula-hoops and pacman, then why can’t it work for health care, the environment, science and the betterment of mankind in general?

2011-11-15T13:47:00.002-05:00

If you enjoy reading earthy books about real people, I have writen a number of them. Here's two that may interest you.

Click on book covers on right on this page for more information about contents, the author and how to purchase. Thanks.

My Name is Aram

By William Saroyan

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

William Saroyan who is also the author of the famous song, made immortal by Rosemary Clooney, Come on to My House wrote these great tales. He and a nephew wrote the song in their enthusiasm while on a road trip to visit an Aunt somewhere out west. Rosey Clooney added her seductive slant to the song and we got the famous million seller.
I read this book for the first time over forty years ago. I loved it and never forgot many of the stories.

As I held the book in my hand to write this review, I began relating some of the tales in it to my wife. Then I sat down and read the book again to see how good my memory was. My memory was pretty good … but not as good as the book.

This book was one among many books of short stories that have served to inspire my own writing. Until re-reading this book, I did not realize how much of this book and this writer I had incorporated into myself.

These are all true to life tales of childhood (granting poetic license) and growing up on the west coast, in Fresno, California way back when. The stories are about mom, dad, grandpa, and uncle Khosrove and the author’s unique immigrant heritage.
I grew up decades later on the East Coast in an old industrial mill town – nothing like the rural settings in this book. But other than replacing a “borrowed” car with a stolen pony, the humor and the sentiments are all universal. Today as I review this book, the movie My Big, Fat Greek Wedding comes to mind. The immigrant nature, the humorous relatives, the contrasting values and the crazy antics and situations brought together by life in the new country are common to the book and the movie.

Two of the stories that I never forgot are The Summer of the Beautiful White Horse and Old Country Advice to the American Traveler. A Nice Old-Fashioned Romance isn’t bad either. The only thing bad about this book is maybe you haven’t read it yet.

The writing is cleaver, entertaining, humorous and spun through with simple wisdom. In this modern copy I have, I have noticed that the punctuation is rather radical. There are no quotation marks used. Rather strange but easily readable nonetheless. I didn’t notice that 50 years ago when I read this book the first time. But there are many things quite evident today that I didn’t notice 50 years ago.

Not many people write books like this these days. Writing has become too sophisticated. There are no monsters from outer space, no demons, no devils, no spirits or ghosts. There are no serial killers, perverts or criminal insanity. Nobody eats any children in this book. No one flies on a broomstick in this book. There are no spells or even “little people.” I suppose the younger crowd would find it boring.

I have always loved it ... and still do.

2011-11-13T12:48:00.008-05:00

I have two books that I would recommend to accompany or counter the thoughts and Ideas of Ayn Rand: "Mein Kampf - An Analysis of Book One" and "America on Strike" both books written by Richard Edward Noble.

Click on book covers on the right on this page for information and instructions for purchasing. Thanks.

The Virtue of Selfishness

Ayn Rand

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

Ayn Rand, I interpret to be a political propagandist for the extreme right. She was interested in philosophy and included the ideas of some philosophers in her fiction – but she was not a philosopher in my view nor in the view of my 8 volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I have read certain of Nietzsche’s works and summaries of his ideas. I find that there are obvious similarities in style, temperament, presentation and overall superiorist attitudes between him and Rand.

Nietzsche had his superman and Rand had her super-capitalist.

Both writers are belligerent and hateful of organized religion and the common man.

Rand refers to religious thinkers as “witch doctors.”

Nietzsche is, of course, infamous for his declaration that "God is dead."

Nietzsche eventually went mad and was institutionalized. I think he was mad long before he was actually declared mad and locked away.

Rand was never declared officially mad and was not institutionalized. She was clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur and was not able to distinguish between success and intelligence. There is often very little connection between the two.

I have read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and published my own analysis of book one. His belief and confidence in the superiority and righteousness of the individual and the capitalist, rings through Rand’s written works.

He has his Arians and Krupps; once again, she has her glorified wealthy capitalists.

His flamboyant braggadocio with regards to the superior few and their right to rule is also a theme running constantly through the ranting of Rand. And the same disrespect for the “common herd” and the principles of democracy are prevalent in Rand and Mein Kampf.

Her family’s wealth was wiped out by the Russian Revolution. It is quite obvious that this event affected her psychological development. She actively joined on the bandwagon of the disgruntled exiles (White Russians and others) and pursued an anti-Red-Russia philosophy. She found much support among Russia haters and the rabid ranks of the Cold Warriors.

Although I can sympathize with some of her positions, I must take her political writing and opinions with a grain of salt and a lot of dubiousness.

She wrote political and economic fantasies that appealed to the selfish and the egotistical. Her goal was clearly to make the better-off feel comfortable with their wealth and their prejudices.

She was another of the many champions of the comfortable and powerful who ran off gallantly to defend the rights and privileges of the rich and famous. There has never been a shortage in this group of comfortable “revolutionaries.”

Her biggest mistake was the same made by the communist in her mother Russia – she attacked God and religion. This was the most daring of her positions.

2011-11-10T08:58:00.005-05:00

My book "America on Strike" is very important in understanding business and management, the stock market and the State and Corporate Capitalistic system we live in. After reading "Devil Take the Hindmost" you might want to consider "America on Strike." Thanks. Click on book cover to the right on this page for more information.

Devil Take the Hindmost

By Edward Chancellor

Book Review

By Richard Edward Noble

This book makes it extremely clear that the stock market is a dangerous place. The author begins with the speculator and the ethics of speculation.

“Speculation is a divisive topic. Many politicians – several of them in Asia – warn that the global economy is being held hostage by speculators. In their opinion, the speculator is a parasitical figure, driven by greed and fear, who creates and thrives on financial crises … Western economists take a radically different line. They argue that speculation is fundamentally a benign force, essential to the proper functioning of the capitalist system.”

In the last paragraph of the book the author gives us his conclusion on this speculative debate.

“Speculation undermined the Bretton Woods system of fixed currencies and, more recently, it has destroyed the state managed capitalism of Japan and other Asian nations. As an anarchic force, speculation demands continuing government restrictions, but inevitably it will break and chains and run amok. The pendulum swings back and forth between economic liberty and constraint.”

That conclusion in my estimation gets a 10 on the Alan Greenspan scale of economic mumbo-jumbo. But it is standard fare from those versed in economics. After reading the book I actually understand what the author is trying to say in this self-contradictory statement. That’s a little scary, in itself.

But in truth I did not buy this book to get the author’s answers to anything. I bought it to get historical information on panics, bubbles and crises. I got a good deal of information. I’m satisfied.

I was actually looking for a book discussing U.S. panics beginning with colonial times and coming forward to the present. More than half this book discusses pre-colonial panics and countries other than the U.S. So I’m still in the market for something more specific and more detailed.

But what about investing in the stock market? What kinds of people have been involved in this enterprise? And how should an average person look at the stock market for his personal investments.

The answers for me, after reading this book are: Do not invest in the stock market. It is filled with crazies, manipulators and the clinically insane – not to mention outright gangsters and criminals. And an average person would be better off investing their life’s savings in their retarded son-in-law than giving their money to a stock broker.

The author takes his readers on a tour of the many famous speculative bubbles and manias of the past going back to the “Tulipomania” of 1630 and carrying us through the Japanese crisis of the 1980s. He even dabbles into present day derivatives and hedge funds. The book was published in 1999 so it predates the current fiasco. But this book makes it very clear that the historical information was there. Japan should have been an obvious example.

For Alan Greenspan to state before Congress that he couldn’t imagine that prominent bankers and brokers would act in such a “negligent” unprofessional manner is beyond naiveté. Alan was obviously joking. It is difficult to determine when Alan Greenspan is joking.

But Alan was not the criminal. He did nothing wrong. He did nothing right either. As J.K. Galbraith stated in many of his books, the Federal Reserve and its bosses did exactly what they should have done … nothing. If they let the bubble go until it collapsed they are blamed for the collapse. If they put on the brakes and tighten up the money in the middle of a “boom” they will be blamed from killing the growth and crippling the prosperity. For us here at home the big questions are where were the inspectors, the regulatory agencies and the Congress and the Senate with the proper rules? And even bigger question …Where was the moral conscience of all those thousands who participated in all the scamming and falsifying? We had more than an accident here. We had a moral and ethical calamity.

What this book makes clear is that what has happened has happened many times before –not on such a great a scale as today. This current speculative extravaganza was a major moral earthquake.

Galbraith said in his book Money, Whence it Came, Where it Went that the time between speculative insanities or panics is directly proportional to the time it takes for everyone to forget the last speculative bubble or panic.

Galbraith also had much the same confusing type answer as offered by Mr. Chancellor.
For the present, rules and regulations need to be put in place but as time goes on these rules or any rules will be undermined. There will then be another collapse and a new need for newer rules. Galbraith suggested a five year term for new rules and new regulators. Then all bureaus should be abolished and new ones established. In other words, the new rules must be kept ahead of the old rule breakers and manipulators. Keep changing the game.

This answer seems to indicate that the problem is endemic to the system. So we need a new system. But is that possible? And what will it be? And will it have other flaws equal to or worse than the present system?

Maybe the same system could be continued and we should concentrate on developing some better human beings.

2011-11-02T09:24:00.003-04:00

When you finish reading Mr. Rifkin's great book, please take a look at my book "America On Strike." Between the two you should have a good picture of what is going on in America today. Just click on "America on Strike" book cover at the right of this page.

The End of Work

By Jeremy Rifkin

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin is an extraordinary work. It opens to the reader a whole new world of thought and ideas.

I read the first 100 pages with my jaw hung open in horror. Mr. Rifkin’s revelations were not above and beyond my own thinking on the subject but I had never before come to realize the full scope of the matter. I had joked in my book Hobo-ing America that all my working career, as fast as I learned a new skill I was replaced by a new method or machine. I joked that I couldn’t be retrained fast enough to keep up with those who were out to replace me.

I am also familiar with the workers’ plight here in America. I have a book of my own dealing with the history of the American Labor Movement America on Strike. So I am not naive when it comes to discussions of this sort. But all my research and background did not prepare me for what Mr. Rifkin had to reveal. I was shocked.
According to Mr. Rifkin my joke with regards to being constantly replaced and retrained was not a joke but a fact of life in the evolving new global world economy.

The point of Mr. Rifkin’s work is that the day when workers will become obsolete is appearing on the capitalist horizon – and it is not creeping along but racing towards each of us no matter what our job status.

Mr. Rifkin is not presenting a theory that may or may not happen … someday. He lists in descriptive detail all the jobs that are disappearing from the market place, never to return.

The scope of this problem is bigger than I had ever dreamed.
I have heard people suggest over and over that jobs were leaving the shores of America and would never return. But like Donald Trump, I said in my innocence, Why can’t they return. Let’s just change a few laws and incentives and make America once again an appealing spot for the steel mills, shoe and sneaker factories, textiles etc.

It never occurred to me nor was it ever explained that these jobs would not and could not return to America because they no longer existed.
Mr. Rifkin details the millions and millions of jobs that are totally disappearing due to technology, automation, advanced software, and labor saving management programs.

He points out that this is happening in all business sectors. The service sector is now on the road to job loses as great as those that have been plaguing manufacturing, construction and all other work avenues, public and private.
Jobs in management, middle management and in other once secure areas are being eliminated. No longer are jobs being picked up by the service sector or even the public sector. Everybody is cutting everywhere. They have been and will continue to do so, blindly and at their own peril and future destruction. It all seems so insane.
He carries these practical observations off into the theoretical and speculates on an inevitable semi-jobless world and how such a world could be run.

The last few chapters of this book outline his theoretical solutions to a jobless world and/or society.

I find Mr. Rifkin’s analysis of the problem and his predictions of dread for the workers of the world credible and inevitable if no action is taken to offset this realistic scenario.

His solutions to this problem I find self-contradictory and impossible. But that solutions must be offered and new roads taken in undeniable.

Every workingman in America should read this book and become aware of the true battle that is looming up before us as I write this very review.

This book was published in 1995 but it is far from outdated. It is a work that is decades ahead. Now is the time to read it and get the picture of the future in perspective. For me a large piece of a very big and confusing puzzle has just been put in place.

Buy this book and read it. You will not regret it.

2011-10-19T08:08:00.004-04:00

When you finish reading "Who Will Tell the People" take a look at "America on Strike" by R. E. Noble. Thanks.

Who Will Tell the People?

By William Greider

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I have been educating myself for over forty years now. I have chosen many great professors to help me along my path to understanding, but I won’t get into that at this moment, other than to tell you about my most recent selection as professor of Civics.

In high school I had a course called Civics. I never figured out exactly what the word “Civics” meant, but I interpret the word as encompassing an explanation of the society and world currently happening around me – politically, socially, economically.

In my high school Civics class we read the daily newspapers, random magazines, and kept up on the local government issues, among other things.
In trying to understanding the modern day world –governments, societies, and general direction of the civilization – I found myself very confused. I wanted to find a professor who could get me up to speed on what is really going on in the world around me. As you know one must choose selectively because there are “so many books and so little time.” Consequently I have chosen William Greider as my “Civics” professor.

I have finished my third book by William Greider this morning, “Who Will Tell the People.” I thought that to be a wonderful title for a book. I have been asking myself that same questions on many different subjects for many years. If you have also been wondering “Who Will Tell the People,” I think I can tell you quite sincerely that one of the people who will tell the people is certainly William Greider.

It is so rewarding when you find an honest, straightforward voice in this world of obfuscation and – for lack of a better word – pure bullshit.
On Mr. Greider’s web site he calls himself an old journalistic type – but Mr. Greider is much more than a Journalist. He is an educator; he is a teacher, an instructor; he is a professor. He has his Doctorate in personal experience in the affairs of the world – that becomes obvious as you follow along behind him.

In Who Will Tell the People we learn, among many other things, how our Democracy works ... or doesn’t work.

Mr. Greider tells us how the Democracy we think we have, lines up to the Democracy we really have.

He tells us about how the laws are made and then un-made. He tells us about the lobbyists, and the lawyers and the Democrats and the Republicans and the Repubocrats – and who owns each of them.

He tells us about the money, the big businesses, the banks, the international conglomerates.

He tells us about the environment; about the military and the pentagon; about who’s in, and who’s out, and why.

At various points in reading Mr. Greider I say to myself – This guy is giving me more than I really want to know. I mean the more I know, the worse it gets. But then he throws in a suggestion, an idea, a possible solution and once again I’m thinking positively.

I am basically a skeptic and I think of the “Power of Positive Thinking” as a prescription for dilution. But you have got to have some kind of hope, even if it is farfetched, distant and on the borders of impossibility. There must be something!
Mr. Greider brings us to the brink, then pushes us off.

Then half-way down, falling into the abyss of eternal despair, we find there is a bungee cord wrapped around our waist. It isn’t much, and the discovery is a little late and maybe not totally reassuring, but it helps.

This book was published in 1992, when we were beginning to talk of “peace dividends” and cutting back on the Military Industrial Complex. Listen to what Mr. Greider was saying way back then:

“The Defense Department was planning a modest five year reduction in the Cold War mobilization ... If the U.S. defense budget were cut in half, it would still be four or five times larger than that of the next strongest nation ... The next round of demobilization would be for real: bringing home troops that had been stationed abroad since the 1950s, closing scores of domestic military bases, shutting more factories ... A few liberals introduced “conversion” bills that did little more than encourage communities and industries to plan for their post-Cold War future. Conservative thinkers concentrated meanwhile, on trying to devise substitute “threats” – Third World terrorism or nuclear proliferation – that might justify continuing the nation’s permanent war footing.”

Chapter 15 of this book is entitled “Citizen GE.” This chapter alone is worth the entire price of the book.

My tendency is to tell you myself what Mr. Greider has to say, but I couldn’t tell the tale as well or with any greater poignancy. I can only tell you to get the book and read it for yourself.

It is not that GE is any worse or better than any of the others; it is more shocking to understand that they are just one of a bunch of like-acting and similar thinking Mega-mights.

If I wanted to continue quoting from this book, this review would be one hundred pages long.

My advice is to buy Mr. Greider’s books and study them. That’s what I’m doing. I’ve only read three thus far, but I know that I am already a world ahead of where I was less than a year ago. Mr. Greider is more than “a read.” He is an education. I feel so lucky to have found such a treasure.

2011-10-17T15:36:00.004-04:00

Secrets – A memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

After you read "Secrets" by Daniel Ellsberg, try "Mein Kampf - An Analysis of Book One" by Richard E. Noble. It is also a book that tackles the question ... "Why War?"

Daniel Ellsberg

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

“But, it is just history,” Daniel Ellsberg was told. Over and over Senators and Congressmen told him, “It is just history.” Four thousand one hundred pages of history. Who’s got time for it? Who would ever read it, never mind publish it in a newspaper?

Daniel Ellsberg was/is clearly an intellectual, or he never would have even considered the notion that anyone would be concerned about “history.” He was and still is concerned with all those foolish things that most of us do not have the time for. Things like principle, right and wrong, injustice, the difference between killing and murder, is napalm a weapon or a terrorist act?

It is difficult to believe but there was a time when the “world” was actually debating the morality of dropping a hand grenade from a biplane. What if the random grenade hit a civilian, was the concern.

Today even the good guys are launching “unmanned” rockets all over the world just like the Nazis did in World War II to the horror of the British and everyone else … for a moment or two. These days when they blow up some unintended people the launchers apologize. The innocent dead are referred to as collateral damage. Oops … Sorry.

Wash your salmonella drenched chicken before you eat it. Why can’t I eat rat poison if I want to? Isn’t this a free country? If she and her children choose to sleep in a sewer, that’s their business. So what if automobiles are responsible for the deaths of more Americans than all of our wars combined. I like my car. Pollution … smulution, who cares?

Daniel was wondering about a soldier’s responsibility to follow orders. If a soldier is ordered to shoot his mother, must he comply? Is there a personal responsibility in agreeing to pick up a weapon? Is shooting into a bush or a hut in an enemy village … reconnaissance? Or is it killing … murder maybe?
Is slitting a non-combatant’s throat because he has seen you in an area that you shouldn’t be in, an acceptable act of war?

Intellectual gibberish?

And Secrets is a history of our time … my time. And I wonder how many of my contemporaries have read it? I wonder how many younger people have read it – this is going to be their world shortly, you know.

This book was printed in 2002 – after 9/11 and before Iraq and Afghanistan. Again Daniel was asking us to read more history. Once again he thought that he could stop a war. Once again it didn’t happen. Some guys never learn. I think Daniel needs to read some more history.

He called the book Secrets. I think there is a reason he called his book Secrets and not The Pentagon Papers Revisited or Vietnam II and III. He did it because there is still the misconception that in this day of 24 hour 7 days a week news coverage “Secrets” can’t be kept from American citizens. This book stands as a testament to the notion that “they” can always fool the people and it can be done ALL of the time.

I read your history book, Daniel, and I got your message. I got it last time back in the 60’s also … even though I didn’t read the Pentagon Papers. It “trickled” down. I got the non-intellectual version – the street version. “This is all a bunch of crap,” is what I heard. “They’re all a bunch of liars and crooks,” is what I heard. “Hell no; I won’t go,” is what I heard.

But aside from learning anything “behavior changing” this rendering is a trip through a human conscience. It is a blow by blow description of how a very intelligent soldier and confirmed cold warrior is transformed into a war resister and a “peacenik.”

It is quite a story. It could be a movie … and it was. The Pentagon Papers is what it was called. I watched the movie too.

I’m reading a lot of history of my own times these days. This is a good one. Sure it is only history … but what else are you doing?

2011-10-14T12:55:00.004-04:00

Find out where Bill is really coming from. Read my analysis of book one of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Click on cover of book to the right of this page to make purchase or get more information. Thanks.

Bill O'Reilly

“Culture Warrior”

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

A friend of mine sent me “Culture Warrior” by Bill O’Reilly. He said his son gave the book to him after he had read about twenty pages. His son who is in his thirties or forties said; “Dad, maybe I’m too young for this guy; I don’t know what he is talking about. See if you can figure it out.”

My friend, the father, said that he read about fifty pages and he gave up. He said why don’t you give it a try. So I started reading.

I’ve reached page 98 but I have decided to quit. I feel rather lazy minded to just quit – after all I am the same person who has written nearly 800 pages, a page by page analysis of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. If I could finish that certainly I should be able to complete a little 200 page rant by a modern day right-winger with an ax to grind or a bat to swing. Adolf had a big ax to grind but Bill seems even angrier than Adolf – if that’s possible.

But I hate to spend as much time as I have reading Bill and not getting something out of the experience to write about. So here is my review of the first 98 pages of Bill O’Reilly’s million seller book “Culture Warrior.”

The cover of the book is red, white and blue on a black background. Bill is sitting in the foreground with an American flag waving behind him – he is wearing an American-flag-blue windbreaker. He has a very familiar Irish looking face. He has those “twinkling” Irish blue eyes and a warm friendly altar boy smile. He could easily have been walking a beat in my old neighborhood. He has the well-known Irish temper – as he admits himself throughout the book – or the first 98 pages.

Bill has discovered a conspiracy. Now I’m a true believer in conspiracies so I can’t knock him on that one. It seems that there are a group of people, living right here within the borders of the United States who are presently involved in the overthrow of “our” government. They are not doing this by means of a revolution or violent overthrow. They are too cleaver to come right out and fight like men. They are doing it by guile and persuasion and trying to sway voters and by real sneaky, underhanded, dirty methods like using their money to twist the media and the “truth.” Bill has a lot of terrible names for these people but overall he benignly refers to them as Secular Progressives or S-Ps.

These S-Ps are a very cleaver group of evil and vile people and they have a horrible anti-American agenda; wait until I tell you about it, you won’t believe it. It is truly beyond your widest dreams.

In the beginning of this book he has a fictitious spokesperson mouth the future as seen according to these S-Ps. This spokesperson is an imaginary future American President. She is a female and her name is Gloria Hernandez.

Gloria and her friends it seems have some horrible ideas – like right out of George Orwell’s 1984.

First and foremost these S-Ps do not believe in God; they are very anti-Judeo/Christian. They want to take all the money from the rich people and use it to make their version of a “better world.” For example they want everybody to have their own home – with no mortgage; they want all children to have an education – for free! And that includes college if they are that cleaver; they think that everybody should make a living wage – whether they deserve to be alive or not! (my God! these people are horrible); they want businesses and corporations to act and conduct themselves in the world market place with a moral conscience (what a pernicious method for undermining capitalism and the American way); they want prisons to be reformed and drug crimes to be looked upon as an addiction to be treated as a sickness and not simply incarceration; they want any and all sick and even healthy people to have access to health care – even if they don’t have a penny!; they actually want the United States to be attacked before the United States attacks anybody else; and one can only conclude from all of the above that these S-Ps would probably try to outlaw war if they could get away with it.

In contrast or in opposition to this group of S-Ps there are the Traditionalists.
Traditionalist love Christmas, and Santa, and lots of presents and Christmas trees and Christmas shopping. They particularly like the word “Christmas.” They love their country and support their country in whatever it chooses to do – especially war.
Charles Dickens and Tiny Tim were both traditionalists who would have liked Bill O’Reilly, Bill claims. Charles Dickens was a traditionalist says Bill. You remember, he wrote that great book about celebrating Christmas, “A Christmas Carol.” As you will remember in that wonderful tale a man named Scrooge (an S-P no doubt) was poo-pooing Christmas and all the other characters, including some ghosts, tried to educate Scrooge to the wonders of Christmas (Traditionalist’s Holiday). And as you will recall in that story, Tiny Tim and his mom and dad and Scrooge’s nephew and all the Ghosts and everybody but Scrooge were strongly in favor of patriotism and war, and capitalism. They were adamant on the rich being able to do as they damn well pleased with their money and that the poor should be damned and get up off their lazy butts and get a job. After all, didn’t Scrooge pay his taxes and support the prison system? What more could anyone ask of him and his rich friends? And that dirty old Scrooge wanted to open orphanages and feed the poor and do all sorts of kind things with his money. But Tiny Tim and his mom and dad and all the other characters and all the ghosts of Christmases past, future and present would have none of it. They all said; So what if we are poor, sickly and crippled. We are in this condition because that is the way we choose to be. And we want to be free. You take all your damn money, Mr. Scrooge, and shove it! If God wanted us to be rich also he would have had us born in a welfare state – not in a country like this one where we can all be poor, crippled, and homeless if we choose to be. That’s freedom, man!

John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were both traditionalists, says Bill. They loved their county and thought that rich people should have everything that they wanted – remember Fiddle and Faddle and Marilyn Monroe. Teddy Kennedy is kind of like the diseased afterbirth of the Kennedy family – he is an S-P and Bill cannot figure out how that happened. Teddy may be the only Kennedy who is not really Irish. Bill didn’t say this but I have heard the rumor that Rose Kennedy may have actually had an affair with Eugene Debs or possibly Norman Thomas that resulted in Teddy “the social dwarf.”

Bill is fearless in exposing this underground of S-Ps in the U.S. population – he names names and shows their pictures. You will not believe who some of these people are. I will list a few but you should buy the book to get them all and see for yourself.

Many S-Ps are or have been in the media – Walter Cronkite has just recently come out of the closet. He was probably an S-P since day one but he fooled all of America for about 80 years. Tom Brokaw, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, Meredith Vieira, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric are all definite S-Ps. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are wannabes but tried their best to keep their S-P nature secret.

But some of the worst S-Ps who have ever been born are celebrities and appear on TV regularly. Wait until you hear this! Two of the biggest are Jay Leno and David Letterman – Jon Stewart ... of course, is another. S-P people are all over Hollywood – just tip over any rock or slime covered growth and you will probably find one of them.

And Bill, who looks to be over six feet tall and a couple of hundred pounds, keeps getting tricked and beat up by these little, ethnic, anti-American, intellectual types with glasses and speech defects. These people have been harassing Bill to no end. He has even had to go so far as to buy himself a multi-million dollar mansion and hibernate and take respite. He has been forced to hire bodyguards because these S-Ps are the type of people who will resort to anything.

There is one among these riffraff who is a billionaire. He was born a Jew in Germany but to escape being baked in an over he went so far as to change his name and maybe even pretend to be a Protestant. The cowardly S-P then escaped to Hungry or some place where the Russians discovered his S-P tendencies and he had to escape to America. When he got to America – just like all the rest of his kind – he somehow tricked everybody and became a billionaire. But now that he is a billionaire he has finally come out of the closet and is attempting to get all the money from all the other rich people in the world and give it to the poor. Isn’t that just like a rich billionaire – I should have known it.

So that’s how it has been going up to page 98. There are a lot more of these pictures of angelic looking people who are really S-Ps and are out to steal from the rich and give it all to the poor and ... and heal the sick ... and ... and clothe the naked and feed the poor and put a chicken in everybody’s pot and a car in everybody’s garage. You will not believe it! You must read this book for yourself. And don’t worry because Bill has these peoples’ number and each week on the Fox News Network (of which he is an executive producer) you can see him expose all these vermin. The only thing is that now most of these people are afraid of Bill and they keep refusing to go on the air with him and have an intelligent conversation. You may have seen Bill and Geraldo having an intelligent conversation just the other day on the news.

I agree with Bill. I can not understand why any person would not want to come on to his show and discuss their political perspectives. These S-Ps are like roaches. They just want to stay hidden in the dark and sneak around at night eating all our crackers and hors d’oevures. I don’t know about you but I think these roaches need to be exterminated. OOPS ... wrong book. That was Adolf. I’ve read Adolf’s book four times now but I don’t remember if he liked Christmas or not. He was a Catholic but I don’t think that he was a good Catholic. He wasn’t Irish; I know that for sure.
Keep up the good work Bill. Keep that light shinning! And don’t you worry, I’ve got your back, buddy. You are a true American and don’t let any of them commie, Jew, atheist, fascist, pussy, cowardly, treasonous, manipulative, tricky, lying, drug-addicted, parasitic (I don’t think he used that one – Adolf really liked that one), scum sucking pigs get you down. I know how depressing it can get for sensitive, kind, generous, fair-minded types like you and me. Gosh, oh golly gee, sometimes I just want to go over into a corner or lock myself in my room and cry. But whatever you do Bill – Don’t let them see you cry.

2011-10-11T19:17:00.002-04:00

Please check out my books of colunms too: "The Eastpointer" and "Cat Point - And Them Dang Oyster People.

I Have Words to Spend

By Robert Cormier

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

Robert Cormier is a writer/journalist/columnist from Leominster, Massachusetts. Mr. Cormier who has authored an array of children’s Novels which include “I Am the Cheese”; “We All Fall Down” and “Chocolate Wars” also wrote “Now and at the Hour” a rather serious adult novel which I reviewed recently. I liked the man’s style of writing so I tried another of his works.

I Have Words to Spend – reflections of a small town editor caught my eye for a number of reasons. It was listed as his only non-fiction. It was an accumulation of newspaper columns. And it was from the “Fitchburg Sentinel and Enterprise.” These things attracted me because I too have worked for a small town newspaper. I also write books. I have been a columnist. And Fitchburg, MA is not far from the area where I was raised in Lawrence, MA.

Mr. Cormier also fit my penchant for reading writers who are no longer living. Reading too many modern “live” writers can be detrimental and lead to a disappearance of one own style and natural writing inclinations. I don’t want to give that happenstance any quarter.

Since Mr. Cormier was rather well known at the time, he wrote the column under a pseudonym. He wanted to speak freely and not gain the ire of the community or embarrass anybody. The book was edited by his wife.

It is a very, very nice book. It can very well be called reflections. The columns are simple and down to earth. Mr. Cormier is clearly a small town guy with no grandiose expectations from life. The stories are sensitive, warm, thoughtful and often subtly humorous. The reader will find himself smiling coyly or wearing a little smirk very often. Belly laughs were few but there were some. His story about speeding through the local car wash got to me pretty good.

There are numerous stories about his family and children, especially his youngest daughter.

I also was intrigued by the title. It still has me thinking. What did he mean by having words to spend?

I think it had something to do with his anonymity and maybe for the first time he was not restricted by his subject matter.

The column was considered “human interest” and he could write on whatever he pleased. So now instead of buying and selling his words as he felt he must with his books and novels, he was free to spend his words as he chose.

I feel that it is easy to get trapped as a writer and begin conforming to what the writer thinks my be the expectations of his audience. I think this happens to all artists and most don’t like it.

So this may have been a reach or stretch for Mr. Cormier. As far as I am concerned he did just fine.

His page presentation was also interesting. There were one line "paragraphs" everywhere. This gave the impression of a very non-wordy type individual. It was very unusual and clearly a good technique. I liked it. Short, staccato sentences with not many excess words. The point is made ... period.

2011-10-01T17:52:00.001-04:00

Democracy for the Few

By Michael Parenti

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

On page 295 of Democracy for the Few the author, Michael Parenti, political scientist and historian, states: “More than half a century ago the great sociologist Max Weber wrote: ‘The question is: How are freedom and democracy in the long run at all possible under the domination of highly developed capitalism.’ That question is still with us. And the answer suggested in this book is that freedom and democracy have at best a highly tenuous and marginal existence in capitalist society.

“In a democratic socialist social system the factories, mills, mines, offices, educational institutions, newspapers, hospitals, etc. will not be privately owned for private gain but will be controlled by and for their clients and workers. That is the goal towards which our efforts should be directed ... This commitment is, or should be, towards communal, collective and responsible decision making …”

Okeydokey! Now where have I read that before? I think it was in a book called Das Capital by some obscure writer whose name slips my mind at the moment.

But this does not bother me. The greatest champions for the rights of the working class in American history have come from the American Communist and Socialist Party. This fact has been credited by famous labor leaders from the AFL, CIO and documented by labor historians. It is an historical fact.

But regardless of the author’s conclusions, remedies and recommendations, I think this book is an invaluable read for anyone interested in the problems that face both capitalism and democracy.

This book was published in 1974 and the author’s analyses of the problems of our democratic system are as prevalent in today’s American democratic system as they were back in the 70s. Not much has changed. In fact, any changes that have taken place have only served to enhance Mr. Parenti’s analysis.

This same book could have the publication date 2010 and with a few name changes and an update here and there it would be on time and on the money. It is amazing to me how Mr. Parenti was able to achieve this. Few social critics have mastered this talent. Most political analyses become obsolete after months. Very few hang around for years and only the greatest for decades. The superstars are the ones we are still reading centuries later.

Democracy for the Few is packed with rather shocking facts and comparisons. For example on page 282 we have this interesting juxtaposition of random information: “… by the end of the 1960s upper income Americans were spending 2 billion a year on jewelry – more than was spent on housing for the poor – and no less than $3 billion on pleasure boating – half a billion more than what the fifty states spend on welfare. Over the years greater sums have been budgeted by the government for the development of the Navy’s submarine rescue vehicle than for occupational safety, public libraries and daycare centers combined.

“The total expenses of the entire legislative branch and the judiciary branch and all the regulatory commissions combined constitute a little more than one half of 1 percent of the Pentagon’s budget.”

This book is filled with such information.

As the title, Democracy for the Few, implies, we have a contradiction in terms with regards to our understanding of American democracy says Michael Parenti, college professor and educator. The gap between the democracy that most of us think we have and the democracy that is our national reality is Grand Canyon-like.

In light of the author’s detailed critical analysis can we seriously claim that we have a democracy – even a representative one, or a democratic republic for that matter?

The author points out every scam, every trick, and every deception. He explains why our democracy isn’t a democracy – with footnotes and easily understood facts and figures.

He tells us why our legislature isn’t working; how our executive and judicial branches have failed us; how our free press has turned news into propaganda; how our freedoms and constitutional rights have been undermined; how our legal system and our prisons have been diverted from the cause of true justice to protective institutions for the criminal wealthy; how our military has been twisted from defensive to aggressive – boarding on the fascist … Well, actually he doesn’t explain how the “system” has been diverted; he explains how it was designed that way from the very beginning. He shows us the Forefathers’ intentions and how our government of the rich, for the rich and by the rich has evolved according to plan.
Mr. Parenti does not think that “the system” can be tweaked. He sees our problems as endemic to our capitalist, corporate state. The old solution of switching corporate controlled Democrats for corporate controlled Republicans will not bring viable change nor will it institute true representative democracy.

This does seem to be the case, but Mr. Parenti, as with others who espouse his solution to these “endemic” problems, seems to be of the opinion that only the wealthy, elitist, current ruling class is capable of deceit and corruption. My question to Mr. Parenti would be, Are these problems endemic to capitalism and its ruling class or endemic to human nature. If capitalists, rich and poor alike, could be injected with a strong dose of the good old, Christian Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – could this not be a more apt and suitable solution? I would even support laws being enacted along the Golden Rule line of thinking. The Golden Rule solution may be naïve but I find it more acceptable than bombs, bullets and a blood stained revolution in the streets of the U.S.A. Revolutions don’t seem to be working all that well either. Look at what ours has wrought, Mr. Parenti – reed your own book!

Republicans and Democrats alike should read this book. I doubt that either group will benefit from it.

This book by itself could easily serve as the text for a two semester college graduate course in American Democratic Government.

Buy it. Read it and weep.

2011-09-20T08:50:00.005-04:00

If you will click on the book cover to the right on this page, you will get more information on this selection. Thanks.

A Baker’s Dozen

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I have been writing and reading short stories since I was a teenager. I have always loved the short story format and it is right up my alley. This book is a sample packet of my efforts over all these years.

Most of my old buddies – or the few that are still hanging out on this planet – have been aware of my reclusive writing habits forever. After publishing this volume, I heard from a few of them. They all complimented me on how much my writing has matured and improved. Interesting enough, when I asked them which stories they enjoyed the most, invariably they chose one of the stories that I had written when in my teens or twenties. That’s funny. There is a lesson there somewhere – but I’ll look for it some other time.

I’m not going to tell any of you which of my tales are from my “early” period or which are from my “mature” period. You will have to guess. But I can tell you one thing, if I thought the story was poor, I discarded it years ago. I have thrown away more stories than I’ve kept in my files. The same goes for my poetry.

I put together this volume with the intention of presenting to the reader a variety of what like I do. As a result, the book has no theme other than all the stories were written by me. Half the stories evolve from life in my hometown. The other half from my life and travels "Hobo-ing America." The "Cain and Bernard's" story, I consider the perfect short story. I laugh everytime I read it. "A Government Job" I feel is one of the funniest true life adventure stories I've written. Unfortunately, it did really happen.

Some of the stories are what is termed “creative non-fiction,” others are totally contrived. Some are funny, others are not funny. Some are third person, others are first person. Some are idealistic, others are realistic. There should be something in this volume for every type reader. My personal opinion is that there isn’t a bad or poorly written story in the bunch.

I’m a traditionalist. I like stories with a beginning, middle and end. I don’t like babbling just to fill the page. I don’t write for the sake of writing, I write with the intention of saying something. Each of these stories says something and each in a different way. I hope you will give this book a try. Your investment will go to a “Noble” cause. That noble cause is to help me publish another of my books. I have many, many stories not yet published. But with a little help from some friends, old and new, I'll get them all out there one day. Thanks for listening.

2011-09-15T17:39:00.000-04:00

The Life and Ideas of Robert Owen

By A. L. Morton

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I stumbled across the name Robert Owen cross-reading for my book, America on Strike. My book is on the American Labor movement and deals with various famous strikes throughout American History.

Mr. Owen was most notable for operating a factory in New Lanark, Scotland that was opened by David Dale and Richard Arkwright in 1785.

Robert Owen took the factory over in 1800. Prior to that time he had been running a successful textile factory in Manchester, England. And thus began one of the most unique experiments in industrial history. With about 2000 poor and destitute – drunks, homeless, poverty stricken, criminal, uneducated rabble – including 500 children from various poor houses, Robert Owen built a successful and quite prosperous Mill town community.

This experiment in social engineering was so successful that people came from around the world to see with their own eyes this, thought to be impossible, miracle. My hometown of Lawrence and its sister city of Lowell were supposedly fashioned via inspiration from Mr. Owen and his ideas and example.

Robert Owen was born May 14, 1771 and died in November of 1858. He is the quintessential model for the self-made man. Born to a large working family he set off at the age of ten to make his fortune. And he did.

He went to London and then to Stamford in Lincolnshire. There he apprenticed himself to a well established draper.

By the time he was a young man of just twenty years of age and now experienced in business and factory work, he made his boss, Mr. Drinkwater, a proposition to take over and manage his factory and run it more profitably than ever before. The boss accepted and Robert fulfilled his boast and was bought into the firm as a partner.
In 1779 he went on a business trip to Glasgow and met Anne Caroline Dale, daughter of mill owner David Dale. He ended up marrying Caroline. And in time, he became manager and partner in the Manchester factory and then talked his partners into purchasing the factory in New Lanark.

His success at New Lanark astounded the world. He became very wealthy and well respected.

He had “discovered” a philosophy. Men were the product of their circumstances. Their characters were not made by them but for them. Provide men, women and children with positive circumstances and they will live positive productive lives. Men are not to be judged or to be praised. They are therefore not responsible and should be treated reasonably and fairly whatever their actions. Clarence Darrow had a similar philosophy.

He became a philanthropist and a Utopian. He attempted colonies or communes in the New World. One was called New Harmony and was attempted in Indiana.
He was a man of unlimited self confidence. He loved children and dreamed of creating a perfect world. He made written plans for this New World and even named it. It would be called New Jerusalem. Talk about being a man with a plan.

He supposedly coined the word Socialism. It was designed to be contrasted with the word Individualism. Individualism to Owen had grown to represent selfishness and indifference to one’s neighbors and the community. Socialism would be the opposite of individualism and it would represent the spirit of social responsibility – man’s love and sense of obligation to one another.

This book is a patchwork of writings and ideas of Robert Owen. It is bits and pieces and slices from the writings of Mr. Owen. It provides a good overview of Mr. Owen and his ideas and philosophy but I find it somewhat disjointed and bumpy. Owen wrote an autobiography in his later days. Unfortunately he went over the deep end as an old man and fell off into the world of spiritualism and talking with “spirits.” He was not a fan of organized religion and spoke openly and publicly about the perils of religious thinking. I will be checking it out but in any case, I am sure someone has written a good biography.

Robert Owen was a giant in the advancement of Labor and fair play for the poor in Britain. He was a talker and a doer. He put his money where his mouth was. I’m not a fan of communal life but Owen and his ideas on cooperative businesses and social structures may be having a comeback. I will be looking into his thoughts. He was quite a character too. From what I’ve read so far he was a man worth knowing and I want to learn more about him.

2011-09-12T09:32:00.000-04:00

The Hobo Philosopher

Will You Walk me to my Car

By Richard E. Noble

"Will you walk me to my car?" the young lady asked me.
"I don't even know where your car is parked," I answered.
"I know you don't, silly, but it is 2 o'clock in the morning and it is dark in the parking lot."

I was the new manager of a successful restaurant on Sunrise Blvd. in Fort Lauderdale, Fl. This was the first time that any young waitress had made such a request of me. I thought that she was flirting with me. The waitress was in her mid-twenties; she couldn't still be afraid of the dark, I thought.
As it turned out she wasn't flirting with me. She was just doing what most girls learn to do very early on in their working careers – she was protecting herself against a needless but very possible attack.

This was memorable for me and I never forgot that experience. It left me with a very strange mix of emotions.

Of course, I felt very manly and protective to be walking this young waitress to her car. On the other hand I felt a profound sadness understanding that I was asked to perform this task in order to protect this girl from a possible attacker of my own kind. She was asking this one particular male to be her protector against other possible less honorable males.

On the one hand I felt pride and on the other hand I felt shamed.
After that experience I noticed that the girl and lady waitresses invariably traveled in packs. They waited for one another each evening and went to their autos as a group or at minimum as a pair.

As a male, I never had to think in such a way – or at least I never did.
When I got to be an even bigger boy and I married, I often wondered if my wife ever harbored fearful thoughts about me. In talking with her cohorts and girlfriends had she ever said; Well, if he ever lays a hand on me I'm out of here.

There was a time when even suspecting that she may have said such a thing would have hurt my feelings terribly. But today, in this state of newfound "maturity," I say to myself why shouldn't she have said such a thing? Who am I to any woman but a "male." I'm the "opposite sex"; I'm one of the "other" kind.

It is very strange to come to this realization. But as we all know there are many males who are untrustworthy, mean, nasty and even brutal. There are males who abuse their mates and even their offspring. And why should any male find that fact so shocking. Males have been murdering and slaughtering one another for centuries – via one excuse or another. And women have for centuries lived in fear of the male and under his domination.

In many foreign countries we see that their women are forced to dress protectively. They don't have to wear armor or bullet proof vests but they must disguise themselves and not appear attractive in any sexual way. It is even against the law for them to do so.

It all sounds like such a terrible situation – to be a female that is.
We think of ourselves as so sophisticated here in the United States but it was just a few years back, 1920, that we allowed women to vote. For the longest time women here in this country were discouraged from reading books; working at many jobs and occupations; there was a time not too long ago when women were not even allowed to participate in sports because it was not feminine or might damage their reproductive capacity.

They weren't allowed to dress seductively either. Sexually enhancing dress was for fallen women and women of the night. Such women were often called "trollops" and much worse by many morally upright males.

As they say we have come a long way but really not all that far. Girls are still attacked here in America and by the thousands – and they are attacked by men and boys.

Women still have to be careful at night; they have to get people to walk them to their cars or they must travel in packs or study the martial arts. It is still dangerous for a woman to be living alone in an apartment in a big city. They must be careful and take precautions that their male counterparts never even have to consider.

Many men, even in America, are still beasts; they still act bestial; they still can't be trusted. You have got to keep your eye on everything they do, even the nice ones.

I was educated here in the U.S. by women who dressed like the women I see on the TV in foreign countries. Very few nuns dress in that style anymore, but that wasn't all that long ago. I'm not that old.

This is a pretty sad state of affairs don't you think? I mean, this girls fearing boys thing? Girls have to guard themselves in our colleges, on our streets, in our parking lots, even in our military. Girls are being sexually attacked regularly in our military … and not by the enemy. This is happening to girls on active duty and in our military Academies. This is rather ridiculous, don't you think?

2011-09-11T08:11:00.000-04:00

The Speech

By Bernie Sanders

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

This is the historic written account of the filibuster given by Senator Bernie Sanders on December 10, 2010 on the senate floor. It exposes the bill that resulted via a backroom deal between the president of the United States and the Republican Party. This filibuster was Bernie’s attempt to explain the negatives of this bill to the American people, gain support from the people and defeat the bill. That did not happen. Bernie made this gallant attempt but failed. The bill passed with all of its unfortunate consequences for the American people – particularly the middle class and the poor.

I listened to most of the speech and tried my best to take notes. Unfortunately I could never become a secretary. My note taking was a failure. So I bought the book to get the information.

Bernie repeated his major points over and over in the text which is fine with me. I am a big supporter of repetition. That is how I learned my ABC.

The main point of the book is why are we giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and international conglomerates while running huge deficits and a substantial growing National Debt. The Republicans agree with the urgency of fiscal responsibility but choose to target the middle class and the poor for the cut backs while exempting their rich supporters from paying their legitimate share.

Bernie is very outspoken in defining who has been responsible for our current economic woes. He pulls no punches. His fearlessness to call a spade a spade is reminiscent of Harry Truman. I’ve heard no other present day politician tell it as Senator Bernie Sanders tells it. And in my opinion he is right on the mark. I find nothing in this book or Bernie’s presentation that I disagree with.

The book is filled with Democratic talking points. He explains why a payroll tax holiday is no holiday but a Right Wing rip-off designed by Republicans to suit the Republican historic goal to kill Social Security. He explains the “death tax” and tells us why it was instituted and why it should be continued. He deals with the off-shoring of jobs, the U.S.’s foundering industrial base, the Chamber of Commerce and its anti-American attitudes, corporate tax avoidance in offshore banks and federal loopholes, lobbyists and their overpowering impact on legislation and the legislators, our detrimental “free trade” policies, the perils of the global economy for the American worker and America, the enormous greed of the over-wealthy, the anti-American attitude of many large corporations, the corruption going on in Washington and in the corporate and business community, and Republican hypocrisy and chicanery on all fronts.

The book is written in the simplest of language. The rich and the powerful have declared war against the middle class and the poor, says Bernie. This fact should be more than obvious to any objective observer.

The points that Bernie makes are explained in detail and over and over again. Bernie makes everything very clear. This is an excellent book and an enlightening learning experience. I only wish more people would read it.

2011-09-05T16:30:00.001-04:00

Bill O’Reilly

“Culture Warrior”

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

A friend of mine sent me “Culture Warrior” by Bill O’Reilly. He said his son gave the book to him after he had read about twenty pages. His son who is in his thirties or forties said; “Dad, maybe I’m too young for this guy; I don’t know what he is talking about. See if you can figure it out.”

My friend, the father, said that he read about fifty pages and he gave up. He said why don’t you give it a try. So I started reading.

I’ve reached page 98 but I have decided to quit. I feel rather lazy minded to just quit – after all I am the same person who has written nearly 800 pages, a page by page analysis of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. If I could finish that certainly I should be able to complete a little 200 page rant by a modern day right-winger with an ax to grind or a bat to swing. Adolf had a big ax to grind but Bill seems even angrier than Adolf – if that’s possible.

But I hate to spend as much time as I have reading Bill and not getting something out of the experience to write about. So here is my review of the first 98 pages of Bill O’Reilly’s million seller book “Culture Warrior.”

The cover of the book is red, white and blue on a black background. Bill is sitting in the foreground with an American flag waving behind him – he is wearing an American-flag-blue windbreaker. He has a very familiar Irish looking face. He has those “twinkling” Irish blue eyes and a warm friendly altar boy smile. He could easily have been walking a beat in my old neighborhood. He has the well-known Irish temper – as he admits himself throughout the book – or the first 98 pages.

Bill has discovered a conspiracy. Now I’m a true believer in conspiracies so I can’t knock him on that one. It seems that there are a group of people, living right here within the borders of the United States who are presently involved in the overthrow of “our” government. They are not doing this by means of a revolution or violent overthrow. They are too cleaver to come right out and fight like men. They are doing it by guile and persuasion and trying to sway voters and by real sneaky, underhanded, dirty methods like using their money to twist the media and the “truth.” Bill has a lot of terrible names for these people but overall he benignly refers to them as Secular Progressives or S-Ps.

These S-Ps are a very cleaver group of evil and vile people and they have a horrible anti-American agenda; wait until I tell you about it, you won’t believe it. It is truly beyond your widest dreams.

In the beginning of this book he has a fictitious spokesperson mouth the future as seen according to these S-Ps. This spokesperson is an imaginary future American President. She is a female and her name is Gloria Hernandez.

Gloria and her friends it seems have some horrible ideas – like right out of George Orwell’s 1984.

First and foremost these S-Ps do not believe in God; they are very anti-Judeo/Christian. They want to take all the money from the rich people and use it to make their version of a “better world.” For example they want everybody to have their own home – with no mortgage; they want all children to have an education – for free! And that includes college if they are that cleaver; they think that everybody should make a living wage – whether they deserve to be alive or not! (my God! these people are horrible); they want businesses and corporations to act and conduct themselves in the world market place with a moral conscience (what a pernicious method for undermining capitalism and the American way); they want prisons to be reformed and drug crimes to be looked upon as an addiction to be treated as a sickness and not simply incarceration; they want any and all sick and even healthy people to have access to health care – even if they don’t have a penny!; they actually want the United States to be attacked before the United States attacks anybody else; and one can only conclude from all of the above that these S-Ps would probably try to outlaw war if they could get away with it.

In contrast or in opposition to this group of S-Ps there are the Traditionalists.
Traditionalist love Christmas, and Santa, and lots of presents and Christmas trees and Christmas shopping. They particularly like the word “Christmas.” They love their country and support their country in whatever it chooses to do – especially war.
Charles Dickens and Tiny Tim were both traditionalists who would have liked Bill O’Reilly, Bill claims. Charles Dickens was a traditionalist says Bill. You remember, he wrote that great book about celebrating Christmas, “A Christmas Carol.” As you will remember in that wonderful tale a man named Scrooge (an S-P no doubt) was poo-pooing Christmas and all the other characters, including some ghosts, tried to educate Scrooge to the wonders of Christmas (Traditionalist’s Holiday). And as you will recall in that story, Tiny Tim and his mom and dad and Scrooge’s nephew and all the Ghosts and everybody but Scrooge were strongly in favor of patriotism and war, and capitalism. They were adamant on the rich being able to do as they damn well pleased with their money and that the poor should be damned and get up off their lazy butts and get a job. After all, didn’t Scrooge pay his taxes and support the prison system? What more could anyone ask of him and his rich friends? And that dirty old Scrooge wanted to open orphanages and feed the poor and do all sorts of kind things with his money. But Tiny Tim and his mom and dad and all the other characters and all the ghosts of Christmases past, future and present would have none of it. They all said; So what if we are poor, sickly and crippled. We are in this condition because that is the way we choose to be. And we want to be free. You take all your damn money, Mr. Scrooge, and shove it! If God wanted us to be rich also he would have had us born in a welfare state – not in a country like this one where we can all be poor, crippled, and homeless if we choose to be. That’s freedom, man!

John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were both traditionalists, says Bill. They loved their county and thought that rich people should have everything that they wanted – remember Fiddle and Faddle and Marilyn Monroe. Teddy Kennedy is kind of like the diseased afterbirth of the Kennedy family – he is an S-P and Bill cannot figure out how that happened. Teddy may be the only Kennedy who is not really Irish. Bill didn’t say this but I have heard the rumor that Rose Kennedy may have actually had an affair with Eugene Debs or possibly Norman Thomas that resulted in Teddy “the social dwarf.”

Bill is fearless in exposing this underground of S-Ps in the U.S. population – he names names and shows their pictures. You will not believe who some of these people are. I will list a few but you should buy the book to get them all and see for yourself.

Many S-Ps are or have been in the media – Walter Cronkite has just recently come out of the closet. He was probably an S-P since day one but he fooled all of America for about 80 years. Tom Brokaw, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, Meredith Vieira, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric are all definite S-Ps. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are wannabes but tried their best to keep their S-P nature secret.

But some of the worst S-Ps who have ever been born are celebrities and appear on TV regularly. Wait until you hear this! Two of the biggest are Jay Leno and David Letterman – Jon Stewart ... of course, is another. S-P people are all over Hollywood – just tip over any rock or slime covered growth and you will probably find one of them.

And Bill, who looks to be over six feet tall and a couple of hundred pounds, keeps getting tricked and beat up by these little, ethnic, anti-American, intellectual types with glasses and speech defects. These people have been harassing Bill to no end. He has even had to go so far as to buy himself a multi-million dollar mansion and hibernate and take respite. He has been forced to hire bodyguards because these S-Ps are the type of people who will resort to anything.

There is one among these riffraff who is a billionaire. He was born a Jew in Germany but to escape being baked in an over he went so far as to change his name and maybe even pretend to be a Protestant. The cowardly S-P then escaped to Hungry or some place where the Russians discovered his S-P tendencies and he had to escape to America. When he got to America – just like all the rest of his kind – he somehow tricked everybody and became a billionaire. But now that he is a billionaire he has finally come out of the closet and is attempting to get all the money from all the other rich people in the world and give it to the poor. Isn’t that just like a rich billionaire – I should have known it.

So that’s how it has been going up to page 98. There are a lot more of these pictures of angelic looking people who are really S-Ps and are out to steal from the rich and give it all to the poor and ... and heal the sick ... and ... and clothe the naked and feed the poor and put a chicken in everybody’s pot and a car in everybody’s garage. You will not believe it! You must read this book for yourself. And don’t worry because Bill has these peoples’ number and each week on the Fox News Network (of which he is an executive producer) you can see him expose all these vermin. The only thing is that now most of these people are afraid of Bill and they keep refusing to go on the air with him and have an intelligent conversation. You may have seen Bill and Geraldo having an intelligent conversation just the other day on the news.

I agree with Bill. I can not understand why any person would not want to come on to his show and discuss their political perspectives. These S-Ps are like roaches. They just want to stay hidden in the dark and sneak around at night eating all our crackers and hors d’oevures. I don’t know about you but I think these roaches need to be exterminated. OOPS ... wrong book. That was Adolf. I’ve read Adolf’s book four times now but I don’t remember if he liked Christmas or not. He was a Catholic but I don’t think that he was a good Catholic. He wasn’t Irish; I know that for sure.
Keep up the good work Bill. Keep that light shinning! And don’t you worry, I’ve got your back, buddy. You are a true American and don’t let any of them commie, Jew, atheist, fascist, pussy, cowardly, treasonous, manipulative, tricky, lying, drug-addicted, parasitic (I don’t think he used that one – Adolf really liked that one), scum sucking pigs get you down. I know how depressing it can get for sensitive, kind, generous, fair-minded types like you and me. Gosh, oh golly gee, sometimes I just want to go over into a corner or lock myself in my room and cry. But whatever you do Bill – Don’t let them see you cry.

2011-08-29T09:21:00.000-04:00

Recollections of a Life

By Alger Hiss

Book Review/Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

The first thing that you have to remember about Alger Hiss is that he is not Rudolf Hess. Rudolf Hess is that Nazi guy, who flew to England for some yet to be explained reasons and was tried and convicted at the Nuremberg trails.

Alger Hiss was also tried and convicted, but in the United States, for being a Communist and supplying information to the Russians in 1938.

Alger Hiss was a graduate of Harvard Law school; was a clerk to Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr.; was one of F.D.R.’s bright young men; was in the State Department; served on the Agriculture committee; on the Nye committee investigating improprieties and profiteering in the armament industry; was with Roosevelt at Yalta; served on the international committee which drafted the U.N. charter; and was president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. But, after tangling with McCarthy, Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and a guy named Whittaker Chambers, he ended up selling paperclips and rubber bands for a living. He was also disbarred and went to prison for nearly four years.

It seems that he spent the remainder of his life trying to clear his name and turn over his 1948 conviction. His two biggest mistakes it seems to me were; agreeing to serve on the Nye Commission which was assigned to investigate war profiteering by people like the DuPonts, and Curtiss Wright and Pratt & Whitney companies; and not allowing Whittaker Chambers to give him a blowjob. A little co-operation on this petition might have wiped some of the frost off old Whittaker’s pumpkin.

But blowjob aside, aggravating the DuPonts and others in the Armament industry by announcing that the charges against them were fair and justifiable, just as they were during World War I, was not a smart move. And further stating that the only way to end corruption in the armament industry was to end war altogether was just adding insult to injury. I mean, when you consider that the DuPonts actually tried to raise a private army to violently overthrow the Roosevelt administration ... come on now?

Franklin and Harry Hopkins were now dead. The Stalin connection was over. Harry Truman was having tea with the old Clividon set and the entire world was reinvesting in Krupp Industries.

This was not a time to be investigating war profiteers. It is also interesting to consider why we spent so much time investigating Communists after the war, as opposed to Nazi sympathizers. After all, I don’t mean to shock anybody out there, but the commies, both Russian and Chinese, were our allies, and the Nazis were our enemies, dahhh, remember?

In Alger Hiss’ last book, “Recollections of a Life” Alger makes his last plea for exoneration, and he makes a very, very good case. He had been anxiously awaiting files to be released under the freedom of information act which were guaranteed to take no more than ten days, but took four and a half years. Oh well?

In any case, information from the newly released Russian files, supposedly contradicts Alger’s testimony once again. I wish Alger was still around to defend himself on this one, but now he is dead also. I wonder, could he have refused Molotov’s offer of a blow job, or are the DuPonts manufacturing gun powder in Russia too? From the looks of Molotov, I’d bet on the latter.

Recently the debate has come forward once again. The adopted son of the Hiss’s, Timothy Hobson, has come forward to advance their innocence. He and his half brother Tony Hiss – who has dedicated his life to clearing his dad’s name – are proclaiming Alger Hiss’s conviction to have been a blatant tragedy perpetrated by a series of lies and falsifications.

It seems that Timothy, a ten year old in 1937 and a household witness to any supposed spying or espionage was not allowed to testify in defense of his parents at the trial in 1947 because he had received an Undesirable Discharge from the military on the grounds that he was a homosexual.

What is truly unbelievable is that it is this one case and this one individual, Alger Hiss that marks a turning point in the politics of the American people.
When Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury (not espionage or treason) America turned from the liberalism of FDR and his pro-Russian and anti-German/Nazi-ism position to the Cold War and the pro-German/Marshall Plan anti-Russian Bolshevik position. This poor man and this tragic case are like the linchpin in one of the biggest policy changes and turnarounds in all of American History. Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time!

2011-08-27T14:22:00.002-04:00

World Orders – Old and New

Noam Chomsky

By Richard E. Noble

World Orders, Old and New is 99% new and 1% old. Though Greece, Rome and a few other empires are made reference to in the early going, the book mainly centers on the United States and Israel. I was hoping for a more historical interpretation of World Orders, but this book is current events as seen through Professor Chomsky perspective.

It is a long story but according to Mr. Chomsky the two biggest terrorist nations in today’s world are the United States and Israel. He establishes this with page after page of facts and quotes. To fact check this book would be a lifetime endeavor for any young scholar or “fact checker.”

I would guess that all the facts and quotes are accurate; the questioning would be with the interpretation of the facts and quotes.

I don’t at this moment know where I would go to find a more critical analysis of the U.S. role in the last century. Mr. Chomsky sticks the sword of his criticism in the body politic of the U.S.A. and doesn’t stop until it comes out the other side – then he twists it several times for good measure.

Professor Chomsky credits the Cold War as beginning with the Russian Revolution in 1917.

With this I agree. On page 41 he credits a fact from a study done by Christopher Simpson that I found interesting.

“U.S. investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power … by some 48% between 1929 and 1940 while declining sharply everywhere else in continental Europe … and barely holding steady in Britain.

“In a recent review of British records, Lloyd Gardner concludes that ‘for the British, the immediate problem was still Russia’, not Germany, during the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact (until June 1941). Deciding that war was necessary, high British officials ‘centered not on German efforts at partition [of Poland], which London had already dealt with as acceptable, but on the Nazi-Soviet pact, which was not acceptable.’”

My research on who actually financed Hitler substantiates the above quote as does my reading in the history of the time.

I would be interested in the percentage of investment coming from the U.S. and going to Japan and Italy during the same period also.

Woodrow Wilson is described poorly in this work and I think justifiably.

It is pointed out that fascism was admired and supported by the Capitalist nations of the world until it proved to be disadvantageous – economically and politically to the capitalists. “The ‘defense’ was mounted throughout the Capitalist world, taking a variety of forms, including the admirable achievements of fascism.”

He then points out that history records, “Throughout the developed world conservative ruling elites had been discredited by their association with fascism.” Unfortunately this fact is only known to those who read history books.

So it is established that the capitalist world was actually at war with Russia since the Russian Revolution in 1917.

This notion should be obvious to anyone who has researched this historical period – but for some reason to speak or write accordingly still receives resistance.
On page 82 the Professor makes this observation.

“A look at who is celebrating after a conflict and benefits from it, and who is left in distress and suffering, often tells something about the true victors and defeated, and indeed what the conflict was about. By that criterion, the victors of World War II include the financial and manufacturing interests that were mobilized in support of the fascists regimes and were largely reconstituted and restored to power by the official victors; the losers of World War II include leading elements of the anti-fascist resistance worldwide, ranging from radical democratic to Communist in orientation, and violently demolished or displaced and marginalized by the official victors. Not the conventional picture, but an accurate one, and one that does not lack relevance to an assessment of what was at stake.”

The book goes on to discredit the U.S. role in South America, Asia and the Middle East. The professor hits hard on Viet Nam and our present position in Iraq and Afghanistan. I really do not have enough information to argue with the professor. His description of U.S. behavior is nothing less than ruthless.

His point is that America is not on the side of democratic rule anywhere. We sabotage democracy in favor of capitalist profit and progress in any way possible. And we support the establishment power structure that will work to the benefit of American capitalist objectives.

I would only make the distinction between the American “Government” and the American “people.” But the professor does point out that the American people are kept unaware via a compliant or inept media and are not allowed to participate appreciably or to any consequence in their government because of the powerful propaganda of the corporate ownership of the American government.

By the professor’s analysis we do not support democracy around the world and we are far from a democracy here at home. I would like to disagree but find his arguments substantive – and embarrassing.

He continues:

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are controlled by International capitalists manipulated by the U.S.A. and invariably programmed to institute policies that cripple, bankrupt, exploit and enslave the people of third world countries.

Israel is a “client” state submissive and cooperative to U.S. hegemony. It is a partner in U.S. criminal behavior. They are murders and killers as is the U.S.A.
The Palestinian populations within Israel and in surrounding areas are modern day slaves. They are treated as a subclass and are kept in such a condition via laws and manipulation reminiscent of Nazi Germany and its treatment of the Jews in the 30s and 40s.

Because of necessary water sources in certain areas the Israelis will never, and have no intention of ever, submitting to a two state solution to their conflict. The Israeli Jews are attempting to exterminate the Palestinians in much the same manner as the native Indians were exterminated in the United States in its early growth years.

From the Israeli perspective peace will only come to the area when all reluctant and uncooperative Arabs are dead.

This is the situation as Professor Chomsky writes and describes it.

As for hope for the future or a possible solution, the professor states: “Much will depend on cultural conditions within the United States, the global power that dominates the region and has succeeded in imposing its will. But whatever the outcome, what has taken place, and how it has been interpreted, constitute an impressive testimonial to the rule of force in international affairs, one that should be considered carefully by those who care about the fate of the world.”

2011-08-22T10:39:00.001-04:00

War and the American Presidency

By Arthur M. Schlesinger

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

Well, I guess I will have to start reading more Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. I enjoyed reading this book. I had forgotten how good he was.

This work was not exactly what I would call a history book and not really a political book either. But it was filled with both. It was more of a conversational book with an historian about today’s politics and guess-timations for the future. He is very blunt and outspoken. You may not agree with the author but he certainly doesn’t seem to be hiding anything.

After reading this thin book of slightly more than 150 pages, I have no doubt from where this man is coming. He is a Democrat; he accepts globalism and the necessity for world trade; he is against unilateralism; he is not an isolationist; he is a capitalist with provisions, he questions laissez-faire and free trade; he supports world cooperation, the UN etc.; he is an anti-Marxist or anti-Communist; he is anti-Bush and the Bush Doctrine of preventive war; he supports diplomacy and is more of a dove than a hawk; he is an establishment type more than any rebel and he thinks nationalism is dead but will linger on nevertheless in the hearts and minds of the unsophisticated. On this last point, I certainly hope that he is wrong. Without a strong revival of nationalism, I doubt that America will ever be what it has been and what I think it should be.

He gives simple to-the-point explanations of complicated issues. He has a very good writing style; easily understood even to the average reader. I have several of his other books in my library. I will have to get to them.

I read this book in a day or two and I have it filled with highlights. I feel that there is much that I don’t agree with in what he has to say. But there is more than enough that I do agree with to peak further curiosity. He is knowledgeable and smart and he backs up what he has to say with historical insights.

His evaluation of pre-emptive war and the Bush legacy, Bush Doctrine of the preventive war, is right on. As the author points out pre-emptive war is legal and preventive war is illegal. He has nothing flattering to say about Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I really didn’t think that president Bush had established a Doctrine. I was hoping it would be considered more of an aberration. But it is what it is and I hope it will go away. At the moment it appears to be advancing under the present Democratic administration.

I found the book to be refreshing, informative, authoritative, historical and opinionated. I couldn’t put it down.

In this short 150 pages the author covers everything from George Washington and the Revolution to the present war in Iraq. He hits on Wilson and Truman, World War I and Korea. We stumble around with Munich and World War II and the battle between the peaceniks and the war-mongers in various wars throughout American history.
It is a wonderful synopsis of the presidency, where it has been and where it is heading.

Mr. Schlesinger doesn’t mess with the small stuff. He crams bunches of big stuff into this tiny volume. A great read.

2011-08-21T12:54:00.002-04:00

The Big Bang Never Happened

By Eric J. Lerner

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I am not a scientist. My interest in cosmology stems from my interests in philosophy and the ancient arguments over this topic arising between philosophers and theologists or as it evolved between religion and science. The author is also interested in these philosophical and theosophical debates and he maps parts of his debate on the Big Bang cosmology and his plasma cosmology on his understanding of these ancient philosophical and religious arguments.

These sections of the book I found extremely interesting and accurate. This is a very interesting approach for a science book. It brings to my mind a book by George Soros that I read recently where he relates his interest in philosophy to his investment strategies.

The author brings economics and its history into the debate also. This is another very interesting approach from my point of view. Equating the cosmological estimation of a historical period to the degree of economic depression or prosperity is extremely logical and quite revealing. I had no trouble at all understanding the author’s inferences in this regard. I found nothing to question or challenge in this area.

This book challenges the accepted Big Bang Cosmological Theory. The Big Bang theory contends that the universe began as a single cataclysmic explosion ten or twenty billion years ago. The author is a scientist who has involved himself in an alternative cosmological theory and discipline known as “plasma cosmology.”

“Today, Big Bang theorists see a universe much like envisioned by the medieval scholars – a finite cosmos created ex-nihilo, from nothing, whose perfection is in the past, which is degenerating to a final end.”

Plasma theory deals with electricity in gases in the universe and the ability of these electrically charged gases to form matter, planets, galaxies and eventually the universe and to continue on in a positive direction, infinitely.

I am not even going to attempt to explain the author’s plasma cosmology. But from my point of interest the author is consistent with the basics as I understand them.
The author does not believe that something can come from nothing. In many books defending the Big Bang, this notion is advanced. I have never accepted such a premise. This author’s theory is consistent with the laws of conservation of matter and energy.

The author states that his theory is consistent with an infinite, self-regenerating universe. The universe does not have to have a beginning nor does it need to end. It always was and always will be. This point is anathema to many religious explanations of the origins of the universe.

The author challenges the interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. The universe, he explains, is not devolving to a negative state as the current misinterpretation of this law suggests but growing in complexity as it always has and always will. He elaborates on this point to other scientists and in the appropriate scientific language.

This author challenges on a scientific level all the established notions and established scientists, including Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and many others.

That the universe always has been is the only intelligent position that can be offered on the subject, rationally in my opinion. This is as far as the cause and effect search can take us. To go beyond the notion that the Universe is where all our knowledge begins is to step into the realm of religion, mysticism, superstition, revelation and the supernatural. We have the universe and we have science with its observations and experimentations and that is where our inquiry should begin and end.

The author also establishes that time travels in one direction. It is not reversible. Just because equations are reversible does not substantiate any fantasy of traveling backward or forwards in time. I have found this notion totally ridiculous. I’ve ordered a book the author recommends on this subject, “Order out of Chaos” by Illa Prigogine.

There is only one area where I disagree with the author, slightly. But it seems to me many scientists fall into this same trap. Hawking in his last book makes pretty much the same misstatement.

Mr. Lerner confirms the ancient argument over freewill with the supposition that because man has an infinite number of choices he then has free will.

Man does not have freewill in the philosophical and theological sense because he could not have possibly chose to exist. Man’s existence is thus arbitrary and no number of choices will abolish that fact. Man is free to conform to his physiological, biological and genetic preset. This was determined by however it was that human beings originated via the universe. This at present is unknown.

Choices do not make the freewill notion valid. Chain a man to a wall and then offer him a million compensations. Having a million choices does not free him from being chained to the wall. And having choices does not set man free from an arbitrary existence.

To me this book is the most logical and straight forward book written by a scientist that I have read in a very long time. I have already ordered other books suggested in this text. I feel that my interest in science has been renewed.

I more than agree with the author in his insinuation that most of today’s science is wrongheaded. We are basically living in a Ptolemaic scientific state. Some drastic turnarounds to get the scientific community heading back in the direction of logic and sound scientific reasoning are necessary. As the author states, at present the Big Bang is being used and distorted by economic and theocratic inclinations to pressure and push science back into the mystical and theocratic. We are returning to the dark ages where logic, reason and scientific experimentation are being replaced by theorizing, and rationalized dogmatic inclinations – complete with computer paradigms and hypothetical models. I would give this book ten stars if I could. This author has a web site: http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/.

I have found no other books written by this author for the general reader. But I will be keeping an eye out for any new books by this gentleman.
I must repeat. I think this is a great book!!

2011-08-10T16:18:00.004-04:00

Hobo-ing America is my book and it provides a picture of how the millions of non-profligate exist in today's America. Click on cover of Hobo-ing America at right of this page for my information.

The Limits of Power

By Andrew J. Bacevich

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

The author does a lot of quoting of a man named Reinhold Niebuhr. Do yourself a favor and skip Reinhold. I read Reinhold first at the author’s recommendation, and even though the man writes in English one still needs an interpreter to get through his book.

Bacevich, on the other hand, is very mater-of-fact and to the point.
Andrew Bacevich is a college professor and ex-military. This book is another installment from “The American Empire Project.”

This Project is a series of books by various authors who disparage the imperialistic policies of the United States, the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex, and the tendency of promoting the misguided notion of global exceptionalism by the U.S.A.

In this work Bacevich points out the futility of constantly choosing military solutions to solve international disagreements by the U.S.A. War should be a last resort and only used as a retort to military aggression by an enemy. Used as a diplomatic weapon it has been a total failure, Bacevich explains. Disregarding the morality of it all, it just doesn’t seem to be working. And this failure goes back for decades.

Mr. Bacevich is extremely hard on his military cohorts. General Franks, Colon Powell, General Wesley Clark and several others are run through Bacevich’s meat grinder. He goes so far as to say that, though America’s soldier base and technology are strong, the officers Corps is derelict. He is very outspoken with regards to the poor quality of American military leadership. This would make some conclude that our institutions for training our officers must be faulty. But Bacevich doesn’t mention our military academies. Maybe he deals with those institutions and their shortcomings in another of his books.

He doesn’t have much good to say about the civilian leadership either. He runs Bush and his administration through the ringer. He is especially unhappy with the Bush Doctrine of “Preemptive War” as should all Americans.

He also hits Clinton and his military strategy of throwing bombs and rockets around as equally misguided, insane and irrational.

The moral of his story is that war does not work. He quotes Norman Mailer: “Fighting a war to fix something works about as good as going to a whore house to get rid of the clap.”

In Bacevich’s estimation the military “option” is not the answer.

He questions every military excuse for their failure, even their groaning about interference from inept and dominating, civilian, political leadership.

By Bacevich’s arguments the military leadership has no excuse. They appear to be, in the author’s estimation, a bunch of bungling, rampaging buffoons.

His bottom line: no military unless attacked. Military brawn is a poor excuse for not using our political heads. The United States is not equipped, nor does it have the moral right to be preemptively striking anybody. We should be more willing to let world problems play out in the world theater. America does not have all the answers and we should not be so patriotically egotistical to think that we do. And, by the way, we don’t have the money or the personnel to protect and direct the world militarily.

A big sub-theme throughout the book is highlighted by the word “profligate.” The author praises Jimmy Carter for his “malaise” speech – though he says that Jimmy never used the word.

It seems that it is the wasteful, greedy consumerism of the American people that has precipitated all these terrible military and political policies. We all want cheap gasoline, cheap goods and cheap foreign imports. We are all wasteful, self-indulgent, and … profligate.

This point by the author brings to mind such past writers as Henry David Thoreau, Thorstein Veblen and John Kenneth Galbraith.

Thoreau advised his American fellow citizens back in the 1800’s to “simplify.” He told us to make do with less and to be satisfied with one chair and a mat of straw to sleep on at night. Henry did not get very far with this notion even back in the 1800’s.

Then there was Mr. Galbraith who pondered the difficulties of “The Affluent Society.” A time that was advancing upon Americans when they would all have more free time and luxuries to spare. Oh woe is me. What would all us fat, overfed, wealthy Americans do with all our freedom and money.

Then we had Thorstein Veblen who coined the term “conspicuous consumption.” But Thornstein was not talking about everyday Americans. He was referring to the elegant class, the better-off and the wealthy. Unlike the other two mentioned above, he had a point.

Mr. Bacevich is laboring under the misconception that all of us Americans have been living high off the hog going all the way back to the late forties and early fifties. Ever since World War II ended, America has truly been a land of milk and honey and “profligate” spending on the part of all us elitist Americans.

My dad was hunting work all through the 50’s in my old neighborhood. My hometown of Lawrence was boasting an unemployed percentage of between 30 and 40 percent. We were in a depression.

Things were horrible.

I have never enjoyed profligacy of any type, shape or form. In my book “Hobo-ing America” my wife and I worked ourselves around America and though we worked by the sides of thousands of hard working Americans, we bumped into very few of the profligate.

I think Mr. Bacevich has been blessed and has had the privilege of rubbing elbows with the profligate in some nifty profligate neighborhoods. I have never seen one, nor do I know any of the profligate class. I don’t doubt that one could find statistics to verify the author presumptions but we all know what has been said about statistics.

I resent being held blame for America’s poor government leadership, military leadership, and poor economic policies.

Mr. Bacevich also neglected U.S. failure to maintain jobs in the face of our mounting import/export imbalances that started, as he pointed out, in 1970 and has never returned to the black. He mentioned the import/export imbalance but never once brought up the loss of our jobs to the global economy and what could or should have been done to compensate and keep Americans working.

I agree totally with over 90% of what Mr. Bacevich has to say especially with his points against the military option, preemptive war and attempting to police the world. But the points where I disagree I disagree very strongly.

Please don’t blame me, buddy. I have been doing all that I can just to stay alive.

2011-08-06T13:43:00.003-04:00

Hobo-ing America

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

This was the most exciting adventure in our lives and despite all the conversation, very few people actually do what Carol and I did. We sold everything we owned, including Carol’s little MG Midget; bought a van and hit the road, Jack. We left our secure lives in 1976 and the adventure never stopped. I was managing restaurants and Carol was a reparatory therapist working the emergency room at a Miami hospital.

When our initial adventure capital ran out, we were reading the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. We were inspired. Why couldn’t we get crazy migrant/hobo type jobs and continue traveling across America? We did. And that is where this book begins – in a farm labor bureau employment office in California. We were signing up to go “top onions” with all the poor contract laborers and illegal immigrants. The interviewer thought we were nuts.

I subtitled this book “a workingman’s adventure.” That is not quite fair to Carol who also lived a “workingman’s” life. She didn’t sit back at the van baking cup cakes. She climbed 20 ft. ladders to pluck oranges from the top of thorny oranges trees; she tonged oysters from the bottom of Apalachicola Bay; she topped onions crawling around on her hands and knees in the desert-like sun of southern California. She did a “man’s” work, as they say.

We are both now well into our 60’s and as I review this book and our adventure, I must say I found a girl who was one in a million. Carol can gripe with God over what she was given but I certainly have no justified complaints on the girl he sent to me.
We had so much fun on this adventure that I felt compelled to write a book about it. Our adventure began in 1976 and ended in an ice cream parlor in Carrabelle Florida in the year 2000. That’s where the book ends but our adventure is still in progress.
Deciding to pack up and leave Fort Lauderdale and our steady, dependable jobs and lives to have a little adventure before we were too old to enjoy it, was truly a monumental decision. It changed our lives and it changed us … for the better.
When I compare this to other travel books and I have read them all – On the Road by Jack Kerouac or Charles Karualt, Mark Twain’s many travel books, the Dove, Walking Across America, Blue Highways, Travels with Charlie by John Steinbeck, Notes from a Small Island by Bill Bryson, I think Hobo-ing America stands out as somewhat unique. We worked our way around this country. We weren’t on a sabbatical or a scholarship. We weren’t getting a check from National Geographic. We worked and we worked hard doing jobs that the majority of Americans wouldn’t do on a dare.

There are only two other books that I think compare with Hobo-ing America in this regard, Two Years before the Mast by William Henry Dana and Pages from a Worker’s Life by William Z. Foster. Those two guys also put in some sweat.

This is a fun book. It is written as Mark Twain advised, without the author forgetting his sense of humor. Carol and I had great fun and met bunches of loveable and very interesting people. It was the experience of a lifetime for both Carol and I. We both hope you will buy a copy and enjoy reading it. Good luck on your adventure.

2011-07-31T08:02:00.002-04:00

A Little Something

MISTER DUCHNOWSKI’S BEAN SUPPERS
[Poetry]

By Richard E. Noble

The majority of my friends, and myself, spent the most of our young adult lives ... looking for love in all of the wrong places. I don’t think that we knew what we were doing. I don’t think that we realized that we were looking for love. But that is what we were doing. That is what we are all doing ... no matter how we express, or try to deny it. That is what we are doing.

Mister Duchnowski was the Dad of one of my bosom lifelong buddies. Every time that we saw him, he had the same advice for us. We had heard his advice so many times, that we knew his lecture by heart. We were always respectful to Mister D., but for the most part we thought of him as somewhat odd. I think that he knew what we thought, but he continued to give us the same speech nevertheless. There were times when we just laughed. We never took him seriously. We never really listened to his well intended lecture. And, we never followed his advice.

Today, Mister Duchnowski is no longer with us, but I can still see him smiling, his teeth back home on the bureau soaking in a glass, his stained, flat-topped golf cap stationed askew atop his wavy gray, and those polish eyes sparking sincerely and hopefully as he offered to us his best thought considerations with regards to our future love life. I still smile as I hear his voice, but now that I am the age that he was then, I have to think twice about what he was trying to say to us. I don’t think that we should have been laughing.

Here’s to you Mister D; and here’s Mister D to the all of you.

MR. DUCHNOWSKI’S BEAN SUPPERS

Listen to me ... listen to me!
You guys is entirely on the wrong track, ya see.
Skip the nightclubs, the booze, and the dim lights.
Take yourself down to a church bean supper one of these nights.

The prettiest girls that you have ever seen,
are right there in the line, spoonin’ out the beans.
I know, I know, you think that I’m old and outta my mind,
but believe me, at them ham and bean suppers are the prettiest
girls that you’ll ever find.

You wouldn’t believe the girl last night slicin’ up the German rye.
It gave ten years back to my life just to see that sweet look in her eye.
And next to her, with the Polish Kielbasey,
was an Italian girl by the name of Bonacarsee.

That dark hair and olive skin ... she could a been a movie star.
And there you guys are, down some dive or two bit bar.
What do you think you’re gonna meet down there?
You guys are missin’ it, I’m tellin’ ya ... But I don’t care.

My life’s over. It’s no matter to me.
But if it’s beautiful girls that you’re lookin’ for
them bean suppers is where you oughtta be.
That’s right! That’s right!

Oh yeah, you can laugh all you want,
but them Church bean suppers
are the places you guys oughtta haunt.
The prettiest girls that I’ve ever seen,
spoonin’ out pork ‘n beans like outta some dream.

You guys is just missin’ the boat.
Why it puts a lump right here in my throat
to think if I was you guy-es age,
I’ll tell ya, I wouldn’t be watchin’ some nude-y dancin’
in some cage.

I’d be down to one of them bean suppers, in a rush
tryin’ to steal a smile or pinch a blush
from one of them lovelies with sauce on her apron,
and bread flour smearin’ her chest.

Take it from me, it’s at them bean suppers
where the girls are the best.
You can leave it behind ... you can forget all the rest,
try one of them church bean suppers

and then you tell me if them girls ain’t the best.
That’s right! That’s right!
You try one of them bean suppers some night.
then you come back and tell me if old Mr. Duchnowski didn’t tell ya what’s right.

You just try one of them bean suppers some night
and see if what I tell you ain’t right.

2011-07-21T11:03:00.003-04:00

Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf

This is a small compliation from my book:

Mein Kampf - An analysis of Book One.

Adolf Killing ideas:

“...Thus, summing up, one can say the following: Every attempt at fighting a view of life by means of force will finally fail, unless the fight against it represents the form of an attack for the sake of a new spiritual direction. Only in the struggle of two views of life with each other can the weapon of brute force, used continuously and ruthlessly, bring about the decision in favor of the side it supports. It was on this account that the fight against Marxism had failed so far. This was also the reason why Bismarck’s anti-socialist laws finally failed and were bound to fail, despite all efforts. The platform of a new view of life was lacking for the rise of which the fight could have been fought ...”

Adolf on the destruction of an idea

“...the following fundamental realization is the result; Conceptions and ideas, as well as movements with a certain spiritual foundation, may these be right or wrong, can be broken at a certain point of their development with technical means of power only if these physical weapons are at the same time the supporters of a new kindling thought, an idea, or view of life. Use of force alone, without the driving forces of a spiritual basic idea as presupposition, can never lead to the destruction of an idea and its spreading, except in the form of a thorough eradication of even the last representative and the destruction of the last tradition.”

Noble on Killing ideas

And this is exactly what Adolf proceeded to do. He fought the notion of peace with the militarist glory of war.

He fought fear of death with the inevitable notion of the Social Darwinist that death is for the weak and sickly.

He preached immortality through the preservation of the race and nation to which he belonged; your death is of little significance when put aside the advancement of ‘your kind’.

He challenged democracy with the practicality and efficiency of dictatorship.
He challenged the principle of kindness and charity with the obvious unkindness and lack of charity provided by the everyday example of the All Mighty and exhibited through the vision of his pitiless disciple, Mother Nature.

He combated socialism with elitism, and appeals to the glory of the individual.
He combated the growing spirit of internationalism, with the more personal and less humanitarian notion of nationalism and patriotism.

He likened debate and thoughtful argumentation to a lack of resolve and an inability to make a decision and thus a lack of leadership.

For every thesis out there in the world about him, he provided an antithesis. He provided the practicality of Hegel with the fanaticism of Nietzsche.

Without doubt, Adolf was the spokesman for a faith. The preacher and the defender of the principles of the barbarian, the warlord, the defender of the sword; a preacher for the righteousness and glory of destruction; the gallant, fearless, defender of the dominant, the unsympathetic, and the right of might; a true defender of the principle of selfishness, and cruelty, all for the sake of the survival of ‘culture’ and the true chosen people. The modern day Ayn Rand political ideals and much of our conservative notions of today, Glenn Beck for example, are a spin-off from the above fundamentals of Hitler-ism in my opinion.

So Adolf provided along with terrorists tactics, a new faith, a new religion, a new philosophy – the principles of this new religion being Race, Country, Might.

2011-07-17T19:35:00.001-04:00

The God Delusion

By Richard Dawkins

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

Richard Dawkins is British. He is a scientist and an avid supporter of Darwin and the concept of Natural Selection. He is a professor at Oxford University. He is also an atheist – or as close as one can get to an atheist by his own definition. He offers no support for “faith” or religion. The Bible and the God of the Old Testament are not two of his favorite things. In case there is any doubt about where Mr. Dawkins stands on those issues let me quote a snippet from page 31 of this text:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously, malevolent bully.”

I should think that quote by itself should absolve the author from any returns made by purchasers claiming that they bought this book by mistake. They thought that the author was a Christian Theologist and now they would like their money back.
He defines “faith” as belief beyond reason. And he further states that this is not a good thing. To encourage others to believe in what is not reasonable, or beyond logic and scientific reasoning, is the source of most of the world’s problems and has been for centuries. He feels it should be discouraged.

He is not a supporter of organized religions. He supports those who feel that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse. He feels that educating children into religions should be stopped. Everyone notices the outrage of this practice when viewing the practice among religions not of their choice but find the whole process legitimate with their own children and their religious choice.
I would say that this book is basically an argument against belief in God or a God and the dangers of organized religion. The author deals with this controversial subject intellectually and reasonably. His views are very strong but he supports them with logical arguments and science.

He dismisses the proofs for the existence of God by St. Thomas Aquinas in as quick and a simple a fashion as I have ever read. He covers many of the basic philosophical arguments in a simple and direct language. For a more in depth analysis of this subject I would recommend “The Impossibility of God” edited by Michael Martin and Rici Monnier.

The author says that he is attempting to open people’s awareness and especially their awareness of the ramifications of Darwin’s principle of Natural Selection.
He has got my curiosity. I am interested in his explanations and I am certainly not as aware as he would like me to be.
For example: At one point in the book he argues with those who contend that the Universe and Life could not have been a matter of chance. The author agrees but contends that the argument is not between chance and design by a supernatural creator but between chance and Natural Selection.

I’m of the opinion that chance is fine. It is the only reasonable alternative and an acceptable answer. To posit God as an answer to the complicated origin of life and the Universe when there is no evidence of the existence of such a phenomenon is the same as saying Santa Clause did it or it was the Fairy Queen who is responsible for life and the Universe. It is a non-sequitur.
I can understand the author’s position in choosing Natural Selection as the origin of life but I do not see how Natural Selection answers the question of the origin of the Universe. Natural Selection is also subject to the infinite regression argument as is God.

To say that the Universe always was and always will be in one shape or form or another is fine with me. I see no other rational alternative at this time. To say that it “came about” via a process of “Natural Selection,” I find confusing. Clearly I need to be made more aware. I have another of the author’s books on my reading shelf “The Extended Phenotype.” I will read that and see if I can become more aware.
This book, The God Delusion, is simple, easy to read and covers the basics of apostasy as I see it. The author pulls no punches and presents his view confidently and unabashed.

I commend the author, Richard Dawkins, for speaking out as forcefully as he does. Theologists and the modern crowd of evangelicals are not the least bit timid in making their superstitions public. I see no reason why those of a contrary and more rational opinion should not do likewise.

2011-07-16T08:08:00.006-04:00

http://www.createspace.com/3476465

Strike Heaven On the Face

By Charles Calitri

Book Review

By Richard Edward Noble

It is claimed that the setting of this book is Merrimack Valley in Massachusetts – specifically the Methuen and Lawrence areas. There are enough tiny references in the work to confirm that suspicion. That is the reason I picked it up. I’m from Lawrence.

But the book is not about the area. It is generic. It could have happened anywhere in America.

It is a school teacher’s story. It is idealistic and at the same time very earthy and real. The characters are real people. The plot is believable and even exciting. There is no doubt in the reader’s mind that the author of this work is an intelligent human being.

Mr. Calitri was a school teacher and then a college professor. One of his students was Frank McCourt of Angela’s Ashes fame.

This book made Mr. Calitri wealthy. He sold the movie rights to Strike Heaven in the Face for a quarter of a million dollars – in 1950 dollars. It was sensationalized and Mr. Calitri said that he laughed all the way to the bank. But as a consequence of this success he was able to pursue another work which he felt to be of a much greater significance, Father.Mr. Calitri’s dad, it seems, was also a Catholic priest. His father had a great influence on Mr. Calitri’s life. I imagine the book “Father” will also be an interesting read.

In Strike Heaven on the Face we are introduced to a typical 50’s type school system in a strongly religious community. We have the young rebellious teacher and the practical minded principal and in between we have our hero. The book is loaded with characters that everyone will recognize. They are you and your neighbors. They are your daughters and your sons. They are everyday people from anywhere U.S.A.

A “gang” or more accurately a club evolves among the students. The activities of the students of this club become known and shock the community. And thus the intrigue begins.

This is an old book and is no longer in print but it is claimed to have sold over a million copies so with some hunting a person should be able to find a copy if they are interested. It is a good story, a story that continues in one form or another to this very day. It is intelligent and thoughtful and it is very well written. I enjoyed it and have no fear in giving it a positive recommendation.

2011-07-14T12:59:00.002-04:00

Exorbitant Privilege

The Decline of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System

By Barry Eichengreen

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I chose this book to read because I wanted to know more about paper money and the U.S. dollar in particular. We can learn even by reading books that we disagree with.
This book is well written, easily understandable, informative, and not beyond the scope of any student of history or economics.

I am sure that Mr. Eichengreen feels that he has presented the economic facts of life and that his analysis and conclusions are the only common sense economic alternatives. I disagree and I have no doubt that he will disagree with my criticisms of his philosophy and alternatives. But first I will give credit to the author for writing a very interesting and informative book and state some of the things that the author has taught me or made me better informed about.

I now know what the Exorbitant Privilege is.

The Exorbitant Privilege is a negative description of the advantage given to the Dollar by virtue of its being the currency of international choice. It is an actual monetary advantage that the Dollar enjoys (as high as 6%) because of its history and the fact that it has been the number one choice as a reserve currency of central banking systems throughout the world. This is a condition not necessarily admired or appreciated by other nations competing for economic equality in the world of international finance. Because of this “Exorbitant Privilege” the U.S. is able to operate with a 6% deficit spending and still break even in the international market place.

Secondly, I learned what it means to be a reserve currency. Where nations once horded precious metals, like gold and silver, in reserve to back up their paper money, they now use Dollars. The Dollar is and has been the new financial world’s gold. The Dollar is, at present, gold in 68% of the central banking systems of the world. It was once even higher but in recent years it has been challenged by the Euro. The Euro is now gold in 32% of the central banking systems of the world.
To be the reserve currency to the world gives numerous advantages but harbors many perils. Pointing out these advantages and perils is the major scope of this book as I see it.

Another smaller point of interest to me was the author’s economic insights to the famous Marshall Plan. We always hear the Marshall Plan being touted positively as the greatest act ever of generosity and sound economic thinking. Very rarely is the perilous side of this generosity expounded upon. The biggest point of interest to me is the fact that in order to perform this act of generosity the U.S. had to put its own economic position and the stability of the Dollar in jeopardy.

The author tells us that the money to supply to our European allies did not exist. It had to be printed up and in excess to the gold that backed it at the time. It was extremely inflationary and dangerous but who was to complain? Certainly not the recipients.

In today’s conservative parlance money was manufactured from nowhere. In effect, the post war world was rescued by “fiat money.” By what gold bugs would call worthless pieces of paper.

If the countries in Europe took the dollars given to them and instead of investing them in their own countries and people, chose to speculate and cash them in for gold, they could have bankrupted the U.S. treasury. They could have made themselves or a few of their bankers and super-wealthy, very rich. They didn’t because it was to their advantage not to … at first. They could become richer by using the Dollar to invest in their people and their country’s reconstruction.

By the time we arrived at the post World War II Nixon administration the economic situation had changed. Some of our European beneficiaries now felt that the U.S. had been manipulative and overly demanding with their almighty Dollar. They started turning them in for U.S. treasury gold. It was then that Nixon took America off the gold standard. The U.S. would no longer trade their treasury gold for dollars. Nixon and the legislature who approved this action, in effect, created this paper world that so many conservative thinkers are so hateful of today. The dollar would now “float” in the international market place. It would become a commodity as opposed to a security, I guess one could say. From that point forward all paper money would be valued against all of its competitors in an international marketplace.
The author then continues to present the international Dollar situation, describing alternatives and possibilities that could be on the international economic horizon.
The author uses his trained economic “conventional wisdom” to outline what he thinks must now be done … only giving ground to a lack of political will in doing what he suggests is economic reality and common sense. It is here that he falls back on Thomas Carlyle’s “dismal science” that he has learned to know and love in his college and university training.

His prognosis is to basically downsize the American standard of living, cut the middle class, cut wages, cut government, cut benefits, negatively spin unions and prepare for the flood of superior foreign global competition by advising Americans to put on nose plugs and resign themselves to gulping and swallowing large amounts of economic foreign overflow as they slowly go under until we reach a parody with China, India, Asia and the middle East.

In demanding this balanced budget on the backs of the middle and lower class and an overall downsizing of Middle American life, he dismisses military cuts and imperial aspirations in two very short statements. One statement philosophizing the inevitability of war and the necessity for defense spending and the other referencing a rather dubious figure equating military spending and GDP. In closing that door, he then closes the door on tax increases to the power of the Republicans leaving the only alternative of domestic and social cuts. This is monumental understatement and absurdity. I assume the author is attempting to be glib.

In all fairness the author does not state his prognosis in the exact terms as I have above but this is how I read it, nevertheless. He closes the book by stating that the fate of the Dollar is all in our hands and not the hands of the Chinese. He says this is the good news. But this was all prefaced by the necessity of solving our Dollar problems in accordance with his dismal notions of necessity.

I would like to counter some of his conventional wisdom with some of my radical Americanism.

The author keeps closing open doors and boxing himself and us in his dark economic cave of limited possibilities. The first door he closes is that of the global economy. He accepts it unquestionably. I disagree strongly.

There is no product that we can manufacture here cheaper and more efficiently than it can be manufactured in some foreign country. Therefore to compete on a global, totally free market basis is an outright loser for the U.S. Anyone that says otherwise, in my opinion, is simply pulling your leg. We can’t do it.

Our standard of living is too high. Our values are too high. And rightfully so. We should not throw our hands in the air and give up our values and our standards. We also cannot change the standards and values of our worldly competitors. We must fight, not conform.

We must nationalize our own standards and values and protect them with incentives and legislation as the situation demands. Japan, China, Germany and other countries have been doing this all along. We have got to start competing by designing a level playing field where we make the design and not our competitors and to the advantage of our workers and our national industries. And I emphasize National to the exclusion of international.

When you hear the president or anybody else boasting about the competitiveness and superiority of the American labor force they are blowing smoke up the American workers butt and it is as simple as that. Any worker can sit on a forklift or tractor or press the green or red button. Don’t kid yourselves. This “global” reality must be recognized.

The author then states that we have a negative trade balance that must be corrected. He explains arguments for devaluating the dollar and thus making our exports more attractive to foreign countries. He demonstrates how this is a delusion and does not work.

But there is more than one way to balance our negative trade balance and it has nothing to do devaluating or inflating anything. Our economy is our working people. The Dollar is the tale of the dog, not the dog. Manipulating the tale does not wiggle the dog. It’s the reverse that is required.

We could increase our exports … if we had anything to export. Rather than increasing our exports, we could decrease our imports. No we are not going to tighten our belts, stop buying and start doing without. We could decrease our imports by reclaiming production and manufacturing markets here at home. We all wear shoes. We all wear underwear. These manufacturing outlets and a thousand more can be reestablished here at home via incentives to national companies who have no overseas attachments. Don’t call General Electric, let them call us. The author dismisses this notion by stating that this type manufacturing America should be glad to be rid of. This is foolishness. Eighty-three percent of Americans agree that the U.S. must increase its lost manufacturing capacity.

We can also encourage new domestic manufacturing. But for any new manufacturer to invest here at home, he will have to be granted incentives and some security. China has manufacturers competing for the right to put a plant in their country. We have the largest market in the world. We should be doing the same. No one is going to invest millions here at home in electric cars or wind mill motors only to see their investment go down the drain in a year or two because of cheaper imports from China, Asia, India, or Europe.

The author points out that too much of our national debt is in the hands of foreign governments. We can thank Ronald Reagan who was the first to borrow and spend more than American’s could buy. I suggest we declare a war on foreign debt. Let’s get our government back in the War Bond business. Start a campaign offering bonds to American investors ONLY … common working people as well as big money people, a bond a week at work etc. Pay us a little worth while interest and then use our cash to gradually buy back some of this foreign debt. Most of us regular people will spend and invest our interest right here in our own backyard. It’s a win/win situation. Give Americans the chance to own America once again. We all may be surprised at the results.

I could go on and on but the point is simple. Think nationally. We can actively participate in the global market place but with reservations and to our advantage. Any company currently importing to the United State could be required to establish 20% of their totally manufacturing here in the U. S. or pay a premium. Make trade agreements fair to working Americans not international investors. And the truth is if our government can no longer be trusted to do this for us, Americans are going to have to figure out ways to do it for themselves.

2011-07-14T08:26:00.000-04:00

All the Trouble in the World

By P.J. O’Rourke

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I am very surprised that there are not more reviews panning this book. Since no one thus far has put a review in the single star category, I will take pleasure in being the first.

“Oh how do I dislike thee, let me count the ways.”

This is not a funny book. This is a vicious hard hitting rightwing diatribe – couched in sarcasm disguised as humor. Most of what the author disparages as ridiculous has already come about since the publication of this book of dystopian, mental lethargy.

Unless you are of the opinion that all is right with the world and nothing can change it; that poverty is Devine Wisdom with regards punishing the lazy; that wealth to any degree is God’s way of rewarding his “chosen people”; that sickness is the problem of the diseased and under the purview of Providence and not man; that education is meant for those who can afford it; that protecting the wealth and property of the rich and famous is the sole purpose of government and so forth and so on, you will find nothing endearing in this book – and nothing new. It is the same old same old, page after page after page.

The author is most definitely making the attempt to appear obnoxious. The picture on the cover should be enough to substantiate that claim. Being obnoxious clearly wins applause by other folks who also are of the opinion that this is the best of all possible worlds and any attempt to make it better is pure folly.

I had intended to close this review by making the disparaging remark that P.J. O’Rourke was nothing more than a sophisticated Rush Limbaugh. But I have decided against that. This book is really not that sophisticated either.

I picked up this book exiting a goodwill store. It was in a basket marked “free.” I often return books to the goodwill when I’ve finished with them but not this one. This one is going directly into my trash can. Unfortunately, this has not been a case of one man’s trash being another man’s treasure. This is more like: one man’s trash being another man’s trash.

2011-06-28T16:57:00.003-04:00

The Hobo Philosopher

St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1100)

Ontological Argument for God’s Existence

St. Anselm was born at Aosta in Piedmont. He became a Benedictine Monk. He was a prior, and an abbot of Bec. He succeeded Lanfranc as Archbishop of Canterbury
in 1093.

He liked to argue with the King at that time. He was a Christian and a firm believer. He liked believing better than reasoning, “I believe in order that I may understand,” he said. He carried that even a step further; he felt that if you didn’t believe you couldn’t understand.

St. Anselm is most famous as originator of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. I think that when anyone first hears this argument, they instantly know that it is wrong, but they don’t know why. There certainly had to exist a better and greater and more perfect argument than this argument as imagined by Anselm.

Anselm claims that even a fool “... is convinced that something exists in the understanding than which nothing greater can be conceived ... And assuredly that than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater.

“Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

“And it assuredly exists so truly that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, 0 Lord, our God.”

Did you get that? Wow! This guy is truly that which is greater than that which I have the ability to conceive. But you know nearly all theologians sound like St. Anselm to me. They all seem to hold a capacity that than which is greater than that
than which I have the capacity to conceive.

Believe it or not this argument has lived through the ages.

A contemporary of Anselm, another monk from Marmoutier, near Tours, a guy named Gaunilo disagreed. He applied Anslem’s logic to real things – like a beautiful island. St. Anselm dismissed Marmoutier by stating that his argument only applied to God and should not be used in any other examples.

They argued back and forth for awhile. Then Thomas Aquinas rejected the argument again about a hundred years later.

Thomas Aquinas said: “Even if it be granted that everyone understands this name God to signify what is said (namely, that than which is greater cannot be thought), it does not follow from this that he understands that which is signified by the name to be in the nature of things, but only in the apprehension of the understanding. Nor can it be argued that it is in reality, unless it be granted that there is in reality something than which a greater cannot be thought - which is not granted by those who maintain that God is not.”

But then came Rene Descartes: “It is no less inconsistent to think of a God (that is, a being supremely perfect) to whom existence is lacking (that is, to whom any perfection is lacking) than to think of a mountain to which a valley is lacking.”
But Immanuel Kant then countered: “I simply ask you, whether the proposition, that this or that thing ... exists, is an analytical or a synthetical proposition. If the former, then by its existence you add nothing to your thought of the being ... If ... you admit ... that every proposition involving existence is synthetical, how can you say that the predicate of existence does not admit of removal without contradiction.”

My God, how true, how very true!

Then Hegel mumbled something to the contrary and others followed. But what the hell is wrong with this argument? Better yet what the hell is this argument? What is the Premise?

Well the first premise is that something that is - is greater than something that is only conceived.

This sounds good when you are thinking strawberry shortcake; it doesn’t sound so good when you are thinking terminal brain tumor or a stick up the ass. To my way of thinking, the thought of a stick up the ass would be greater than actually having a stick shoved up my ass.

To tighten up here, the premise might be that it is greater to exist, in reality, than it is not to exist, or only exist in concept. To be or not to be, that is the question.

I suppose that first off most of us would say that it is better to be than it would to not be, but under analysis it may be otherwise.

Let’s speak theologically for example. If your being intends that you will end up in hell for eternity; I would say to not be or to never have been would be a much more rewarding alternative. In which case, it would be greater to not exist at all than to exist.

To exist entails both pain and pleasure. To not exist entails no pain and no pleasure. Depending on your tolerance for pain and suffering, if you were given an educated choice in the matter, you very well may have opted for non-existence. Unfortunately we got no such choice. And as Albert Einstein once asked; “Did God have a choice in his own existence?” Could God, if He does exist, not exist if he chose not to? Could God in the beginning have not been and then have chosen to be?
Another problem that I have with this Ontological proof of the existence of God is this: Most definitions of God include a reference to his infiniteness. Infinite in terms to His greatness would mean that there is no end to God’s greatness. In mathematics, for example; is there a number than which no greater number can be thought?

Whatever number you can think of, I can add one to it and have a greater number. Numbers are infinite. So then there is no number than which no greater number can be thought.

In Geometry: is there a straight line that which no longer straight line can be thought? As with the greatest number stated above, so it is with the longest line. Lines are infinite and therefore a longer line than any line contemplated can be conjured. So is there a line whose length no greater can be thought? No.
This is the nature of infinity. If God is an infinite being, then His greatness is without capacity. To say that there is something that exist that which nothing greater can be thought - may be self-evident to the fool; but with regards to the infinite or infinity it is not true. Infinite greatness would imply that no matter how great I could imagine God to be - He is greater. So: is there that which nothing greater can be thought?

No.

So the basic premise: that even the fool must admit of a being that which no greater being can be thought - is false. Infinity has no end or capacity.

The second premise: that existence is greater than no existence, is debatable. It would depend upon the state of said existence and upon the notion that non-existence is even possible.

A non-existence without pain, suffering or angst would in my opinion be greater than an existence filed with pain and suffering; surely greater than an infinite existence of unimaginable suffering - which is promised by many religions to non-believers and sinners.

I’m not a mathematician but ... Is zero greater than minus one?

So, are there any more premises left to this proposition?

Does infinity exist only in our understanding or in reality?

It certainly exists in our understanding, but as for reality we can only suppose.
The Universe could be infinite - if not the Universe, then Space.

Einstein, as I understand, claimed that space was merely a property of matter. As an amateur philosopher, I find this notion impossible - unless, of course we then claim that it is matter that is infinite. If we say that matter is finite and limited, then space must be infinite. To say that the Universe (both space and matter) is limited is conceptually and logically impossible because, if the Universe is limited, it must be limited by something.

If we define the Universe as - all that is. Then whatever it is that limits the Universe would be part of the universe and thus the universe would be unlimited. If what limits the universe is limited, then what or where or in what does it exist? This is an infinite regression (or expansion). It tells me that the universe can not be thought of as anything but unlimited or infinite.

2011-06-19T19:59:00.004-04:00

For more information on this title click on book cover at right of this blog. Thanks.

Sewer Covers

Today’s question is: Can a sewer cover be made to fall through the hole that it was designed to cover?

We were playing stickball up the old Howard Playstead when our sponge rubber ball got away from us. It rolled down the Birchwood Rd. hill or went over the Howard Corner wall and right into the sewer on Lawrence St.

Losing rubber balls of one type or another down a corner sewer was a common childhood experience in Lawrence and I imagine in any inner city. The balls were not all that expensive as I remember, but none of us ever had a dime between ten of us. Even if we all chipped in and came up with the required amount then we would have the problem of whom the ball actually belonged to once the game was concluded. But in truth the option of buying a new ball was rarely even considered.

We all gathered around the sewer and contemplated.

The ball was right there. We could see it bobbing up and down. Could we get it with a stick or maybe two sticks? What about a tree branch? How about a coat hanger with a loop in the bottom tied to the end of a stick? How about a stick with a Dixie Cup tacked to the end of it? This was a job for Plastic Man.

What if we lifted the sewer cover off the hole and then had the one of us with the longest arms reach down into the sewer and grab up our ball? Good idea.

The sewer cover was heavier than we thought. It took four of us gripping the sewer cover through the square holes to get it up and carry it off to the side. But then we realized that our sewer with no cover was right on the corner of busy Lawrence St. and Birchwood Rd. If a car was coming up Lawrence St. heading to Broadway and it wanted to turn on Birchwood, its front tire could go right into the hole. Oh man, it could get destroyed.

Some of us would have to direct traffic around the sewer hole while the rest of us rescued our ball.

Well … not so simple! Even Dolan who was all arms couldn’t reach it – even with one of us sitting on his calves while two of us each grabbed onto a foot and sneaker. There was only one way. We would have to dip Dolan down into the sewer, head first, while two of us held him by the legs.

Dolan opposed this idea. “What if you guys drop me?” he argued.

“Why would we drop you?” we countered.

“Because two of you ain’t strong enough.”

“Okay, what if we put two guys on each leg?”

“And what if you guys decide to drop me just for the fun of it?” Everybody laughed. “Yeah, see?”

“No we won’t let you go. We need the ball. It would be stupid for us to let you go.”

Dolan was not thoroughly convinced but he agreed. He laid down on the ground and scootched himself forward over the sewer hole as far as he could. Two of us on each side grabbed a leg and upsy-daizy went Dolan. We lowered him down into the sewer, head first.

It was a bit hairy there for a moment or two as proper positioning got a little cramped and guys started stumbling over one another’s feet. Then Dolan, feeling the stumbling, began screaming and cursing up at us. Unfortunately this started me laughing. As the laughing spread, Dolan began screaming louder and louder. But in-between the sputtering we got him down low enough into the sewer that he was able to latch a mitt onto our ball. There were several other balls down there and one of the guys suggested to Dolan that while he was down there why didn’t he toss the one he had in his hand up and out of the sewer and then start gathering up some of the others.

Dolan’s response to this suggestion was not nice – very, very gutterish. A kind of sewer talk, you might say. This caused a resumption in the sputtering amongst the holding crew. Dolan demanded to be fished back up immediately.

We began stumbling away from the sewer in a direction to Dolan’s advantage. When we finally dropped Dolan on the asphalt we all dropped to the ground laughing.

Okay, the operation was a success now all that was necessary was to get the cover back onto the sewer hole.

We took our positions around the sewer cover and dead-lifted the monster. We clumsily side-stepped, our way back to the sewer. We had four of us holding the sewer cover about 3 feet above the sewer hole. It was heavy and we were all straining. “Let’s just drop it,” someone suggested. “Then we can straighten it up.”
It was agreed that on the count of three we would all let go of the sewer cover and jump backwards getting our toes out of the way. We didn’t want any smushed toes.
“Okay … one … two … three … drop it!”

The drop went perfect and none of us got our toes smushed but to our total amazement the sewer cover dropped somewhat tilted and instead of landing a little off center, the damn thing went right through the hole and splashed down into the sewer.

For some reason our first reaction when any catastrophe struck, was to run. Somebody screamed “Oh shit!” and we all took off running. We didn’t get further than the next corner when someone yelled, “We can’t run away. What if a car goes into the sewer hole and then crashes and kills everybody?” We all spun around and ran back to the sewer hole. We positioned ourselves around the sewer and then sent Jack Greco, who lived nearby, to call the cops.

Calling the cops was not something that occurred to us on a regular basis. It fact, it almost never occurred to us. But on this occasion, it somehow came right to mind.
When the cops got there we told them that when we arrived at the corner to play a little stickball we noticed to our horror and shock that the sewer had no cover. So, good citizens that we were, we immediately stationed ourselves around the sewer and had somebody call the cops.

The cops looked at us very suspiciously but called the city department nevertheless. The city department came out with warning sawhorses with reflectors and placed them around the sewer. Both the cops and the city workers complimented us on our community spirit. One of the cops kept smirking at us as we all gleamed and glowed and took our bows. It was like he knew but for some reason wasn’t going to rat on us. We all played it for all that it was worth. We were the little Howard Playground heroes.

But after the cops and everybody else left we all breathed a sigh of relief and slapped each other on the back. We agreed unanimously that removing the sewer cover was stupid. We tried to recall which one of us decided that we should all return to the scene of the crime and then have Grecs go back home and call the cops. Dolan said that it was his idea but that didn’t … float. We all quickly agreed that a good idea from Dolan would be without sufficient precedent.

It is rather amazing in retrospect to reflect on how stupid can turn into genius with the casual flip of a sewer cover.

2011-06-15T16:03:00.003-04:00

For more information on this title click on cover of book to right of this blog Thanks.

"A Summer with Charlie"

Chapter One

1 Charlie Gets Liberty

“Rich?” my buddy Willie said in a whisper, slipping up next to me at the pool table. “That was Charlie, man.”

“Charlie?”

“Charlie Kareckas!”

“What’s he doing home from the Navy?”

“He’s dying, man. Didn’t you hear?”

“Dying? You’ve got to be kidding?”

“No man! He got some disease from workin’ them X-ray machines for the Navy.”
“How come he ain’t in some Navy hospital or something?”

“He’s gone, man. There ain’t no cure. So I guess the Navy just let him go and he’s back home at his mom and dad’s house until he croaks. They called me up to find out where all of us guys were hanging out now. I guess Charlie just sits around the parlor staring out the window and smoking cigarettes. Mr. and Mrs. K don’t know what the hell to do, I guess.”

“No joke?”

“No joke, man.”

I stared down at the pool table as I pretended to be racking up the balls. Chucky was home from the Navy. He was home to die.

Charlie’s home, and my home, was a mill town in the northeast corner of the State of Massachusetts. It was thick with people, rough and tumble, down and dirty. It was tough, blue-collar, working, immigrant folk from just about every country in the world. In fact, today it calls itself The Immigrant City. There aren’t too many places like it in the United States that I have ever seen. I have been all over the United States and I haven’t seen anything like it. I’m not saying that Lawrence is or was something great, I’m just saying that it is unique, a one of a kind. Seeing it once, though, would probably be enough for most folks. This is where Chucky and I were raised.

Robert Frost graduated from Lawrence High School which was just one block north of the “Y” (YMCA). I had to tell you all that. It’s the only fact that most of us know to brag on in old Lawrence.

Across from the Y was the Common. The Common was a city park. It had a baseball field, and a softball field, a wading pool and played host to many city events. I’ve since read that one-eyed Big Bill Haywood was there in 1912 for the famous Bread and Roses labor union strike. The largest labor union strike of the era, involving tens of thousands of workers. Supposedly that strike changed labor history and turned things around for the workingmen, women and children in America.

I always thought that it would be interesting to research that strike. Two of my grandparents were there and probably on different sides of the picket lines.
My grandmother on my mother’s side was a weaver, and my grandfather on my father’s side was a mill foreman at the Arlington Mills on Broadway. My grandmother worked at the Wood Mill.

The Wood Mill was the largest of its kind. It was built, owned and operated by a William Wood. My grandmother, the weaver, was Polish and my grandfather, the foreman, was Irish. My grandfather might have been standing, looking out a fourth floor window, slapping a club into his palm or wielding a shotgun, while staring down onto the street at my Polish grandmother marching and picketing with her newly arrived, poor, immigrant friends.

Growing up, I never heard one word about unions or strikes. I never heard of the Bread and Roses Strike, or Big Bill Haywood, or Elizabeth Gurley Flynn or Mother Jones. Nor did I hear about the deaths of strikers that were caused by the authorities and then blamed on the strike leaders. A little Italian girl by the name of Anna LoPizzo was shot and killed by police and a fifteen year old Syrian boy by the name of John Ramy was bayoneted by the militia and eventually died in a Lawrence hospital. They framed two of the union leaders for the murders. Smiling Joe Ettor and Arturo Giovannitti were in jail for over a year and finally absolved of the trumped up murder charges brought against them by the state.

My friends and I never discussed any of this. The Bread and Roses Strike of 1912 is the most documented labor/management disaster in union history, yet I never heard mention of it in or out of any of my Lawrence school houses. I don’t know if the town was ashamed of it, or it was my Catholic, “support the State and keep the peace” education. Maybe there were such hard feelings over it that everyone just refused to talk about it. So there you go - history in action.

Big Bill Haywood stood up on the bandstand at the Common and gave his famous, or infamous, clenched-fist, unity speech. Each finger standing alone was destructible, but once the hand was closed into a fist and united, the fingers could now defend themselves like a club - today’s black power salute.

Dwight David Eisenhower appeared in the Common in 1952 on his first run for the presidency. Between Lawrence, Lowell and Haverhill you probably had several million eligible voters. I don’t remember Ike being there at the Common. I would have been nine or ten at the time. I could have been there in the crowd for all I know.

“Hey Charlie, you feel like losing a game of pool, do yah?”

I had just walked into the YMCA. The gang from the old Corner had migrated to the lobby at the Y. I didn’t even know what the letters YMCA represented. I really didn’t care. The important thing was that for fifty cents I was now an associate member of the YMCA. Being an associate member entitled me to complete and unadulterated access to the Y lobby and its multiple and various facilities. This included a free seat in the “peanut gallery” for TV viewing; access to two official-sized pool tables; visiting privileges to the public reading room; and permission to use one of their chess boards, checker boards, or decks of bicycle playing cards. It was really the best deal for a winter quarters that our street gang had ever stumbled upon. A nice warm lobby with all of the above mentioned amenities, plus vending machines that sold hot chocolate, coffee, potato chips, crackers, Coca-Cola and a whole array of other goodies. I don’t know which one of the guys had discovered the associate membership to the Y lobby, but this was the berries. This was the closest we had ever come to being treated as adults in our entire career. It was great; coatracks and everything. Just like real people and not street hooligans or roughnecks. That’s what my mother used to call me and my buddies ... roughnecks. “Where are you and your roughneck buddies going tonight? Don’t let the cops catch you. STAY OUT OF TROUBLE!” Yah, yah, yah.

I heard a familiar voice call out my name, but my quick scoping out of the peanut gallery revealed no recognizable candidates. I proceeded across the lobby and over to one of the pool tables. I put my quarter in the machine apparatus, shoved in the sliding doohickey thing and then started racking up the balls.

The peanut gallery was always dark, so that you could see the TV which was elevated high up on a wall. If you wanted to change the station on the TV, you had to drag one of the folding or straight-backed chairs over, and climb up onto it. Of course, you had better ask the crowd in the peanut gallery before you ever made such an attempt, if you didn’t want to get lynched.

I saw a smile spread under the porkpie hat over in the dim, poorly lit corner.
“Well,” Charlie said rising up from his chair. “I suppose that this will be embarrassing. It has been so long since I’ve shot a game of pool.”

“Oh my god, will you listen to this? The overseas, international billiards champion of the entire US Fleet and it’s going to be embarrassing? Yah right! Don’t give me any of that Willie Mosconi hype. I know better.”

Charlie was laughing now. By the time he got to the table, I had the balls all racked.

“You break ‘em, hustler,” I said with a grin.

Charlie picked himself a cue and rolled it around the table. After three or four cue sticks bumped their way over the felt, he grabbed up the last one and laughed.

“That’s a good one. You can probably shoot around corners with that sucker.”
“Yah, right.”

Charlie didn’t look like Charlie anymore. His face was all puffed up. He was a little chubby. He wasn’t the lean, mean, fighting machine that he was when he had joined the Navy. If Willie hadn’t come up to me and pointed him out, I certainly wouldn’t have recognized him. He didn’t look sickly though. He still pranced like a young colt with his leather healed loafers clicking on the hardwood floor. He always dressed well; neat and clean, not fancy. Charlie was a sharp looking guy - neat, trim, good looking. He used to slick back his hair and puff a big wave up in the front, as we all did. We all looked like Elvis in those days.

Charlie had been a member of the “corner gang” since the early days. Myself and John Robert Michael McSheehy Sr. were the organizers of the original Corner Gang. We were on our way home from the St. Rita’s grammar school in route number four when we got the bright idea.

The “routes” were the organized and patrolled or supervised pathways to our various neighborhood homes, orchestrated and devised by the Good Nuns. The Good Nuns, the Sisters of Notre Dame, had everything under control. The nuns were sweethearts I know, but I still don’t think that I had a nun in any grade who was unable to press her own body weight in the gym. I never saw a nun with a tattoo, though. I walked home in route number four because it was the shortest route. It was only one block long, and it ended at Nell’s Variety Store. I don’t know what brought up the idea of starting a Corner Gang, but we thought that we would like to start one. John Robert Michael McSheehy Sr. thought that starting a gang would be easy.

“Just start hanging around the same place at the same time everyday, and pretty soon you will have a gang,” he suggested. I didn’t believe it but I always hated going home so I suggested that we give it a try. John Robert Michael McSheehy Sr., commonly known as Jack, was agreeable to the idea. So everyday after school we went into Nell’s, got a bag of Granite State Potato Chips in the sealed fresh aluminum bag and a bottle of C & J (Curran and Joyce) Orange Phosphate, or Lime Rickey and we were in business. We would just sit outside on the steps of the store, or on the sidewalk or the steps leading up to the upstairs apartments and just wait. At supper time we would go home and eat quickly and then run right back. I remember thinking at that time that this was the most exciting thing. I couldn’t wait to get back to the Corner after supper each day. It was like fishing. How many bites would we get today and then could we hook them?

It was only a matter of weeks before we had a gang. First came Dolan, who lived just around the corner; then Costello, who lived right across the street from St. Rita’s; then Cusack, then Comier, then Charlie who also took route four; then Vinnie Whaley; then Mike Torla who was a friend of Jimmy Costello. It wasn’t long before there were fifteen or twenty of us out there every afternoon and evening. It wasn’t long before we were a part of the local police department’s regular routine also.

“Okay, let’s move it. Come on, come on. Don’t you little bastards have a home to go to, anyway?”

“You know officer, now that you mention it, you look a little like Dolan. You ever spent any time on Hampshire Street, sir? What do you think Dolan?”

“Daddy, daddy, oh please, can I go home with you tonight?”

“Get movin’ you little shits. If we have to get out of this cruiser you guys will be in big trouble.”

“Yah like what are you gonna do ... arrest us?”

“That’s it. Let’s get ‘em Billy.”

“ALL RIGHT! They’re gonna arrest us! SHOTGUN!”

“No no, I’m riding shotgun. You got to ride shotgun last time.”

The cops were a regular thing. It was a joke. This was a Catholic tenement-house city, with ten damn kids on every floor. The Police didn’t know what to do with us. They tried to keep us moving from one place or from one corner to another. But whatever corner we migrated to, the neighbors didn’t want us there either. But the truth was that most of the cops were just like us. They were Irish Catholic or sons of immigrants. They each had six or seven brothers and sisters, and they grew up in the streets or hanging out on the street corners just like we were. They mostly just laughed at us and told us to take a walk and give the poor people living in the surrounding tenement houses a break. We used to go on walks all over the neighborhood, but invariably ended right back where we started; sitting on the steps at Nell’s Variety.

“So, what’s the deal, you out of the Navy for good now, or just home on leave or something?” Small talk. I knew all the answers but you have to say something.

“I’m gonna be around for awhile,” Charlie offered, while inspecting the pool table for a good shot.

“Lucky us.”

“Yah, lucky you guys.”

The guys who hung out on the Corner were more like family than acquaintances or even buddies. We all knew one another better than we knew our own family members. We sat there everyday, day after day, talking our personal stuff and our personal problems.
Charlie wasn’t one to be confessing a lot of personal stuff. He was busy, busy, busy. He was always just coming or just going. He was a year or two older than me and Jack and some of the others. He liked playing cards, shooting pool, and pitching pennies. He was a listener, and a laugher. He was the tease-ee rather than the tease-er. He loved getting razzed, or being the subject of a joke, but he never told any himself, and he didn’t tease others. He was the kind of kid who beamed when you called out his name or bumped into him someplace downtown. He loved to be recognized. He loved being a part of the Corner Gang. He played in all of the activities. He was an independent type. He had his own car when we got bigger.
He had his own cigarettes. He never bummed a cigarette. And he didn’t indulge those who did. He always had his own money. He never talked or complained about his mother or father or his sisters or brothers. In fact, I don’t know if he had a sister. I know he had a younger brother.

Charlie was up the Corner all the time, he was one of the guys. He skipped out of the senior prom to come down to Walter’s Variety to get a pack of cigarettes. Walter’s was one corner up from Nell’s and it was our latest refuge and hangout. Everybody loved that one. A dapper dude in a tux, smoking a cigarette, and reading comic books at Walter’s Variety on senior prom night. Walter loved it. He thought that was the greatest. Charlie was a pisser. He was no class clown, but he did unexpected things. Charlie was really so straight and conventional that when he did something out of the ordinary, it really stood out and made you giggle. When you were with Charlie, you always did the talking. I don’t ever remember Charlie voicing an opinion on anything. He was easy to be with. He was easy to be around. He was very easy to like. It would not be easy to watch him die.

2011-06-14T20:50:00.006-04:00

A Baker’s Dozen

For more information on this title click on "Baker's Dozen" bookcover at right on this page.

Book Review

By Eve Paludan http://www.evepaludan.com/

[Eve Paludan is a writer and editor. Eve Paludan is an editor of scholarly works by day and a novelist by night, occasionally doing freelance fiction editing on weekends. She is currently attending Arizona State University (online) and is working on earning a Web Developer Certificate from Northern Arizona University. She is also writing another romance novel. Eve has been married for 2.1 decades to a software developer/publisher, Ron Paludan, who is also a 3D (Poser and Google Sketch-Up) artist, as well as a webmaster of commercial sites.]
REVIEW:

"A Baker's Dozen" Short Stories by Richard Noble is not only a treat, it is a feast for the mind, with some of the stories reminiscent of the O. Henry type of plot twists that have captivated readers for generations. Like the proverbial box of fancy chocolates, each story in this collection gives the reader a satisfying taste of a different flavor, and yet a cohesive theme of American blue-collar nostalgia makes a pretty box to contain these 13 delectable story treats.

A consummate storyteller, Richard Noble brings to life both civilized life -- with themes like marriage and running a business and adventures with drinking buddies and unions and such -- and uncivilized life, such as my favorite story in the collection: In "I'm Going Home," an itinerant fruit picker and pot dealer named Jon enjoys the freedom and economy of living in a national park but ponders the suspicious death of an alcoholic Jesus freak known as Pea-Coat. The trouble starts when Jon starts his own investigation of the assumed suicide. Wow, this story grabbed me and didn't let go, nor did it disappoint. Well done.

In "Cain & Bernard's," the author takes the long way to getting his own specialty butcher shop ready to open, which will require a plumber. His hilarious first-person retelling of his guy-centric path to his goals keeps getting diverted to a local bar where he has to drink with a plumber, seemingly for days, before they get down to business. Apparently, all of the regulars have long ago dated many of his aunts and his mom, which causes him some consternation and embarrassment. Oh, and existing on bar food -- mostly pickled eggs -- and alcohol is not a proper diet for a working man.

In "Love is Blind," Diane is a thirty-something spinster with a lovely apartment. She hasn't had a date for years. One night she gets a call from a war vet whose memories of them dancing at Arthur Murray as youngsters sustained him through the worst of times. What happens next left me with a lump in my throat. So poignant and romantic. A what-if that we all think about. Could someone from our past re-surface and...?

In "Gluckman's Poultry," the author goes wholesale meat-shopping on what are possibly the wrong side of the tracks and has a small adventure and a lesson in managing people at the bottom of the blue-collar totem pole.

In "Mussels in Marinara," more adventures in the butchery business ensue in South Miami with the author's friend, Lenny, after their meatpackers' union ditched them. This story is about crackers and beer, and Lenny's wife, who is simultaneously a princess and a shrew. There's something of an urban, blue-collar Shakespeare feel to this short story. Very enjoyable.

In "A Government Job," an ad for a nondescript job for a "coordinator" sends Richard, our hero, into unexplored territory as he bluffs his way through the job interview in some of the funniest b-s-ing I've ever read, as both interviewer and interviewee muddle through in a battle of wits!

"A Corny Christmas Story" presents the author as a little boy possessed of charm and surprising wit as he peddles his mother's hand-crocheted hats door to door, so that the family can buy a Christmas tree while Dad is off fighting a war on the other side of the world. I loved this! It should be a short film for a Christmas special. It's wistful, hopeful and amusing.

There are other great stories in this collection, and each has a sense of place and characters that are unforgettable. The author wrote some stories in first person, others are in third person with protagonists who are likely veiled characters of people he seemed to know well.

If you're looking for an entertaining short story collection with a sense of the past, Noble nails it with 13 gems that will make you laugh, cry, and swear at the adventures of a vivid and down-to-earth Americana.

Five stars for an entertaining short story collection of man stories that even a girl can love. -- Eve Paludan, author of Letters from David, a romance novel.

2011-06-14T13:07:00.001-04:00

For more information on this title click on book cover to the right of this post.

Introduction

Adolf was a self-styled messiah, preaching a faith. He came from out the Germanic woods like the fabled Siegfried to rescue his people from world domination. World War I and his experience as a soldier formed the basis of his moral thinking and, from what I can see, his adult personality.

As I analyze this book it becomes more and more evident that these arguments of Adolf’s on varying subjects are still much of the political debate of today. Would Adolf be a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a conservative?

A big debate going on at this moment deals with the study of Western culture. Some are ashamed of it, some are proud of it. We have the AIDS virus and Adolf had the problem with syphilis. There is a continuous and on-going argument as to what society should do with its non-achievers. The problem with youth, vagabonds, the homeless and street-corner hooligans seems to be ever-present. How a government should operate and what should be its legitimate limits and concerns, is always in discussion. What is the destiny of our nation, or other nations? What should a society do with its sick, aged and infirm? What should be a country’s attitude towards war and aggression? What is the purpose of the media in a society? What is the main function of our educational institutions? What is the role of banking and finance? Who should be in charge and how should they get there? What is the role of religion and what should be the attitude of the state towards religion? What should our attitude be with regards to our expanding population and the expanding population of the world? What is the role of science, architecture, the arts and history in our present day society?

The argument of which race is the greatest is as vibrant as ever. We have even managed to expand this argument into which sex is the greatest. The Japanese are still reeling from their incarceration in the U.S. during World War II, and the fact that the only nuclear bomb ever, was dropped on their tiny island, as opposed to Western Europe. The African and Spanish cultures are in a heavy battle to make prominent their share in the history and cultural development of the world. China is rushing towards superpower status, and even today it seems as remote and strange and distant as it ever was.

Communism, socialism and capitalism are related in bitterness as seriously as any moment in the last hundred years. The competition within the species goes back to the foundations of human history. Humans were engaging one another in war before this bloody competition even had a name. The internal and external struggles for power between and among representatives of the human species are ongoing and seem to be incurable.

Adolf says to the human race that it must face reality and actively engage itself in the battle for the survival of the “greatest.” I say that if this lunacy is not eventually controlled and hopefully stopped with the recognition of the greatness (or mediocrity of all) the bitterness and beyond that lies in the hearts of the human beings will eventually destroy its kind entirely or continue to reduce the progress of the human race to its present and historical state of crawl.

Adolf says that me and those like me are cowards. Yet in his attempt to destroy us, he found his own cowardly end. I guess that it is up to each of us to decide which philosophy will lead to the greatest eventual good for the future of mankind. The same choices are still with us. Pick a side.

2011-05-30T19:02:00.003-04:00

This is a chapter from my book "Just Hangin' Out, Ma." Click on cover on the right of this page for more information

Brother Conrad

Brother Conrad was, in my opinion, one of the worst instructors ever at Central Catholic High School. But yet I have never forgotten the man. I had him for “Home Room” and for “World History.”

Brother Conrad was the size of a midget. One of his antics was to crawl up on top of his desk at the front of the room and peek down on somebody who was sitting up front, maybe eating their lunch or doing something inappropriate. He would belly-flop across his desk, his head propped up by his elbows with his chin in his palms. His feet would be in the air behind him, like a little kid lying across his bed at home. Everybody in the class would go into hysterics.

No matter what class he was teaching, he always drifted over into Lawrence, its politics or people. He was very concerned about the canals. He felt that they were dysfunctional and useless. He wanted them to be drained and paved or used for a subway or something.

He was brutally sarcastic. I’ll never forget the day that he walked into the classroom holding a copy of the Eagle Tribune high over his head.
“Lookie, lookie, lookie,” he squealed. “Did you see last night’s paper? We got two more.”

The front page of the Tribune had a picture of a car wrapped around a telephone pole. The car was estimated to have been traveling at over 100 miles per hour. Two teenagers had been killed instantly. The vehicle was hardly recognizable as an auto.
Brother Conrad thought that teenagers were violent and suicidal. He proposed a solution. He often suggested that all teenagers should be shuttled off to an island somewhere. Periodically a boat could be sent to the island and extract all of those who managed to survive to the age of 21 and return them to civilization.

In World History class he had one routine that went on and on. There was a student in the class by the name of Harcourt.

“Harcourt, would you please stand up.”
Harcourt (not his real name) was probably eating his lunch, looking out the window or grab-assing with someone around him.

“Tell me Mr. Harcourt, what do you intend to be when you grow up?”

“I’m goin’ to be an engineer, Bruddah”

“Really? I don’t really think so, Harcourt. Engineers have to know a lot of math. Are you good at math, Harcourt?”

“Not very, Bruddah. But why do you have to know a lot of math to drive a train? All you have to do is follow the tracks.”

“Oh, you what to be that kind of an engineer. And you have the boots for it don’t you?”

“Yes Bruddah, I got these engineer boots for Christmas.”

“How nice. And you feel that you can drive a train by just following the tracks. I suppose that is how you get to school each day. You are from up the river aren’t you?”

“I live in Haverhill, Bruddah. But I don’t follow the railroad tracks to get to school. I take the bus.”

“Well, since you ride on a bus everyday to get to school, why don’t you want to become a bus driver?”

“Bus drivers don’t have no tracks to follow, Bruddah. I figure driving a train should be easier and I think it pays more money.”

“Harcourt, you must know by now that you are never going to graduate from this school or go to college. Here it is only January. Do you realize that if you quit school right now and beat the June rush, you could get in line ahead of all the other kids over at the mill employment office and maybe get a job?”

“I want to drive a train. I don’t want to work at a mill.”

“Okay, okay, quit now and get your fanny down to a train station. If you wait until June, there will probably be a whole bunch of your fellow classmates ahead of you down at the train station. If you quit right now the line will be a lot shorter.”

“I’m goin’ to go to college, Bruddah.”

“You are? And what college is that, may I ask?”

“Harvard.”

“Harvard? That is a very good choice. Why did you pick Harvard?”

“Because there is a train from Haverhill that goes right to Harvard Square.”

“Oh yes, I forgot. You like trains.”

This comedy routine sometimes went on for the whole period. It depended on Harcourt’s answers. If Harcourt’s answers were creative enough, Brother Conrad couldn’t resist asking more silly questions.

Our entire class flunked the World History exam. For some reason Brother Conrad just couldn’t believe it. When he asked for an explanation, Harcourt raised his hand.
“Yes, Mr. Harcourt. You have an explanation of why this entire class flunked their World History exam?”

“I think so, Bruddah.”

“Well, by all means share your insight with me because I am at a total loss.”

“Well Bruddah, there wasn’t one question on that exam about the canals, the Merrimack River, the water works, Lawrence, or even Mayor Buckley.”

2011-05-25T12:39:00.002-04:00

Old Is Where It’s At

But It Takes Getting Used To

By Richard E. Noble

All of the music that I listen to, I started collecting from the Columbia Record Club back up in Lawrence in the 50’s. It was written, sung and played by dead people - Benny Goodman, Louis Armstrong, Erroll Garner, Peggy Lee, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Doris Day, etc., and now even Ray Charles. All of these people are now dead.

All the books that I read were written by dead people, and most of them died a long, long, time ago. Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, Tolstoy, Plato, Bertrand Russell, Sartre, Aristotle, Mark Twain, O’Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith, Upton Sinclair, Henry S. Comminger, Thomas Jefferson; they’re all dead. Just about every book on my bookshelf or on my up-and-coming reading list was written by a person who is now dead. William Manchester was one of the few who I have been reading who was still alive, but now, he is dead also.

My very life and experiences are now the subject matter of history books. My books are in the history section at the Lawrence Library. Some of them are at the Heritage History Museum even.

Now most of my big decisions are concerned with pain and longevity. Should I bend or should I squat? Should I risk buying bananas that are still green? Yes, I know it is cancer but how long will it take to develop and mature? If it takes more 15 or 20 years to get serious, leave it there. Who cares? So what if I don’t get my cataracts removed and I will be blind in the year 2063. I ain’t going to be here anyway. Go right ahead and dissolve Medicare by 2050. See if I care.

Everywhere I go today the world seems to be filled with people, who, like myself, are very old or almost dead.

The grocery store, even, is being staffed by people who are almost dead. I think that all the young people today are either so whacked-out on drugs that they can’t pass a pee test or they are off in some foreign country fighting for somebody’s freedom and are now unable to deliver my newspaper or ring up my groceries at Demoulas’ Market or Butcher Boy’s.

The guy checking out my groceries at the store the other day, along with the bagboy, were both older than me. Now that’s scary.

I put my groceries on the automatic sliding shelf and the old man starts running them across the magic price reading thing-a-ma-gig. Everything is going fine until this chicken won’t beep. He swishes it across the magic window three of four more times at varying rates of speed – but not a beep out of the chicken. He shakes the chicken two or three times, as if there must be something wrong with whatever is inside of the chicken that makes the beeper beep – but, no response from the chicken. He then presses the chicken into the magic window and puts his body weight on top of it to try and get it closer to the magic window reading whosey that is inside somewhere. (Personally I think there is an illegal alien in there with a key pad.) Nothing happens. The gray haired, partially bald clerk holds the chicken up in front of him and shakes his head negatively. “What is wrong with this chicken?” he mumbles. “I guess that I will have to ring it up by the code numbers.”

He stretches his arms out in front of him as far as they will extend; he tilts his head up, squints a little and makes an attempt to read the code numbers on the price tag of the chicken through one of the sections on his trifocals. “My god” he says. “Ted Williams, who could see the threads on a curve ball coming at him at one hundred and ten miles an hour, couldn’t read this damn thing.”

He lowers the chicken down towards his waist, turns his head slightly to one side and tries to read the numbers from out the corner of his glasses. No luck. He holds the chicken in one hand and then tries to adjust his glasses on his face, up and down, with his other hand. No go. He takes his glasses off, momentarily and tries to scan the chicken bare-eyed – no help. He raises and lowers the chicken – still at arms length – while he nods his head up and down in an opposite sequence from the movement of the chicken. It could be a focusing problem. Doesn’t work.

He takes his glasses off his head and runs them back and forth between his eyes and the chicken – nothing. Finally he lays the chicken down on the counter and attempts to read the code numbers by placing his glasses down on top of the price tag on the chicken, as if his trifocals are a magnifying glass. This doesn’t work.

“Let me see that chicken; maybe I can read it,” After examining the chicken closely, I say, “I think that it is three dollars and twenty-five cents.”

“I know that,” he says, with a frustrated sarcasm. “It is not the price I need. I need all of them little numbers there on the bottom of the price tag, next to all those squiggly lines.”

“Oh, here you mean ... okay, let’s see – four, six, nine, seven, seven, three, one, two, eight, eight, eight, four, one, two, three, eight, nine, one, two, one. That’s it. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ring up the price?”

“Oh god! Don’t even talk about that. That’s a book in itself. So, is that it?”

“No. I don’t think that you got my tomato there.”

“Okay, that will be $149.52.”

“Did you get my tomato?”

The man doesn’t look at me and repeats the total bill once again. I notice that he has a buzzer in his ear. My wife has a buzzer for each ear.

When you see a person with a buzzer in their ear that means that they only read lips. The buzzer in a person’s ear doesn’t really do anything. It is, more or less, a symbol or a sign of deafness. It is only there to let other people know that this person can’t hear a damn thing. It is like a pair of sunglasses on a blind person. But because I have experience living with a person with buzzers in her ears, I know how to handle this situation. I tap the clerk on the shoulder – when he turns and looks at me, I say very slowly and in a loud voice; “Did ... you ... get ... my ... tomato?”

“You got a potato?”

“No, did ... you ... get ... my ... tomato?”

“You don’t have to yell at me, I ain’t deaf for god’s sake.”

“I’m sorry.” I reach down and pick up the tomato that is lying on the conveyor belt. I hold it up and roll it around in front of the man’s face.

“That is not a potato,” he criticizes.

“I know. It’s a tomato. Did you ring it up?”

“Is it yours?”

“Not yet, but I would like it to be one day.”

“You want me to ring that up?”

“Would you please?”

“No problem.”

The man puts the tomato on a special scale. The computer identifies the tomato as a tomato and suggests a starting price or bid. The optimum possible price appears on the price screen after a series of bids from e-bay have been calculated into the final quote.

“How much is that tomato?”

“Twelve dollars and nineteen cents.”

“You’re kidding?”

“No, that’s what the machine says. I think that they had a blizzard in Paraguay this month or something. All the tomatoes got killed.”

“All except that one.”

“I guess. You want it or not?”

“Yeah, I’ve been planning on having a tomato all this year. I already bought some bacon, white bread, mayonnaise and lettuce. It wouldn’t really be a BLT without the tomato.”

“Okay ... got the tomato; now where are those potatoes that you said you had?”

“I don’t have any potatoes. I can only afford so many vegetables in one year. This year it’s that tomato.”

“I get ya.”

“Would you like me to take this out to your car?” asked the bagboy who looked old enough to be Mark Twain’s grandfather. I watch the old man bagboy as he struggles to lift the bag off the counter and place it into my shopping cart. As he lowers the bag into the cart the upper half of his body follows the bag into the cart and his feet come off the ground behind him.

“Nuewww. I think I can handle that myself, but thank-you anyway, sonny,” I say.
As we exit the store, I say to my wife: “Did you see the price of that tomato?”

“We forgot to get a potato?”

“No," I said. "Did ... you ... see ... the ... price ... of ... that … tomato?”

She rushes her thumb up to her ear and begins spinning things around on her buzzer. “Holy Cow! What are you trying to do, blow my brains out! Just speak to me in a normal voice. Don’t yell!”

“Honey, I simply said, Did you see the price of that tomato? That’s all I said.”

“Okay! My goodness, you are such a baby. If you want potatoes, let’s just go back inside and get some.”

2011-05-09T10:32:00.001-04:00

The Hobo Philosopher

Paganism

By Richard E Noble

Paganism, and its notion, that the universe and the affairs of mankind were controlled by a multitude of equally powerful and sometimes competitive Gods, was the curse of ignorant, superstitious primitive people, I was taught as a young boy. As I read history it seems, as usual, it is the exact opposite that is the truth. In the world of the polytheist just about anybody’s God was O.K. It is in the world of the monotheist that everybody else’s God becomes a problem.

It seems that the Jews were the first to present, in no uncertain terms, this horror story, that there is only one God. It is suspected that Moses picked up the idea while spending some time in Egypt. A guy named Akhenaton, here yesterday – gone today, was really the first serious monotheist. He created quite an uproar in Egypt. Contrary to common knowledge Abraham was not a monotheist. He is alleged to have proclaimed his God as above all other Gods but did not deny the validity of other Gods.

“There is only one true God and that God’s name is Yahweh,” the Jews proclaimed to all of their neighbors, and even to their Roman rulers. The Romans said, that’s fine, let’s put a statue of Yahweh in the Temple next to Jupiter. The Jews then flipped out. They told the Romans that one day a great Jewish general was coming, sent to them by Yahweh, and with this new General’s help they would not only whip Roman butt, but they would run them off the planet earth and into the fires of Hell. (You have to remember when you listen to talk like this, that the Jews, at their root, are really Arabs.)

The Jew spawned the Christians. The Christians had basically the same story as the Jews with a few variations and a couple of twists. The big difference sociologically speaking between the Jews and the Christians was that the Christians allowed even gentiles and even Romans to become Jews. (You have to remember that the Christians at their root are really Jews.) The Jews said that they were the chosen people and that nobody else could become a Jew and that a Jew shouldn’t even marry anyone who wasn’t already a Jew. But the Christian Jews said that anybody could become a Jew so long as they took the right attitude. So to make a long story short the international Christian Jews and their One God, eventually take over the whole Roman Empire, under Constantine (debatable). The Christians and their international One True God, Jewish idea end up murdering, torturing, and killing one another for the next thousand years in a manner that makes the Roman Tyrants look like pikers.
During this period the Christians spawn the Muslims. The Muslims have the same basic One God story, and the our god can beat up your god idea; but they change the One True God’s name from Yahweh to Allah. (You have got to remember that Muslims are, at their root, Arab Jews.)

So here we are today and all of the – there is only One True God and his name is whatever people – are still killing one another. They have been killing one another for about two thousand years now. This alone should be proof to any of us that there is not One True God no matter what name you give to him.

The Greeks and Romans were obviously closer to the truth and had a much better idea in a whole bunch of, take them or leave them, not entirely true and not entirely false, Gods. With their program you could just pick one that you liked or make one up on your own, and as long as you paid your taxes, bought your permits and licenses nobody knew who was going to Hell or who wasn’t. We could all have our suspicions, and make our guesses but only the Gods knew for sure.

Oh for the simple days of Polytheist Paganism where everybody could be loved by their own God and nobody had to petition for the affections of yours.

2011-04-04T10:50:00.001-04:00

A Brief History of Time

By Stephen W. Hawking

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I read this book several years ago and since that time I have read it several more times. Since my first reading, I have not been able to get this book off my mind. On that account I should give it five stars. But the things that I can’t get off my mind are all negative criticisms. On that account I should give it one star.
My criticisms start before I even get to the author.

In his introduction Carl Sagan speaks of “Einstein’s famous question about weather God had any choice in creating the universe.” Unfortunately Mr. Sagan paraphrases this one of Einstein’s many famous questions incorrectly, as my memory recalls.
If there were a God why would he not have a choice in creating the universe? This paraphrasing makes no sense.

Einstein’s question as I recall it was whether or not God had any choice in his own existence.

Now that is a big question to all us philosophy buffs. Mr. Sagan’s incorrect paraphrasing makes Einstein’s “famous question” no question at all.

Asking whether God had a choice in his own existence is a subtle way of stating the impossibility of the God concept.

If there is a God he could not have had the choice to exist or not to exist. He either was or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, he could never have been because something can not come from “nothing.”

The answer to the rhetorical question is that he had no choice and therefore was lacking in freedom. God can not be God and be lacking in freedom. Therefore the concept of God is untenable.

The above is not my opinion; it is simple philosophic logic that can be found in any philosophy book debating the God concept.

This was really a rhetorical question in my opinion on the part of Einstein. He was expressing his dubiousness on this subject.

If there is a God whether or not to create the universe is no problem at all; God can do as he pleases. He can create it or not create it. Who or what is going to make him do it or not do it? What logic says he can’t do it? Sagan’s question makes no sense.

Now we come to Mr. Hawking and friends.

Unfortunately there is a lot of sloppy language going on in the scientific community. Mr. Hawking is just one of many who “slop” around terms to the point of meaninglessness. One such term is the word “universe.”

The universe is defined briefly as, “all that is.” I am sorry but there can not be two “all that is.” All that is covers everything. It follows then that there can be no multiple universes, parallel universes or competing universes. There can only be one universe.

Scientists are obviously using the word “universe” with a different understanding than “all that is.” Somebody should explain to readers how the scientific community is defining the word universe.

Other improperly used words are infinite and annihilate.

The universe can not be at the same time infinite and limited. An infinite universe can not expand. It is already infinite. It can’t get no bigger than that.

A particle can not be annihilated and at the same time transformed into something else. If a particle is annihilated it not only disappears, it ceases to exist. It doesn’t just disappear. As far as I know annihilation is impossible. Therefore if a particle turns into light and/or energy, then it hasn’t been annihilated. It has been transformed. It can only be annihilated if it has been turned into nothing – and this is an impossible theoretical state. A state of “nothing” does not exist.
Space is also something. Its influences may be so minimal that they are not necessary to mathematical equations but space is more than a state or condition fabricated by gravity and other magnetic forces. There are scientists who are presently working to discover exactly what space is and what its influences are on the universe.

Light travels in straight lines in all directions infinitely – but it also bends. This is impossible. It does one or the other. It either travels infinitely in straight lines or it bend and wiggles its way through space. If light bends and wiggles it way through space then it certainly can not be used as a measurement of the distance between planets or galaxies. Unless someone can measure the exact amount of wiggle at every distance in space – which I doubt very much is possible. What the heck are these scientists talking about?

An ellipse is an extended circle? Then I suppose a circle is a square with rounded sides. I know these guys are trying to dumb this stuff down for folks like me but if they dumb it down too much they are me and then we are all going nowhere.

I’m not a Big Bang guy and neither was Mr. Hubble. I have read that Mr. Hubble who established the notion of red shifts and blue shifts said that he in no way concluded from this observation that the universe is actually expanding or that any Big Bang was involved.

I think the Big Bang notion is comparable to “the world is flat” notion along with the Ptolemaic universe and phlogiston. It is being challenged by plasma theorists and others. The whole concept seems to be imploding in favor of an infinite, self-evolving universe.
I am reading a book at the moment by Eric J. Lerner “The Big Bang Never Happened.” It is making some sense to my way of thinking.

Question posed in Mr. Hawking book: What was God doing before he created the universe?

Answer provided in book by St. Augustine: Time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

So then where was God? He obviously did not exist before the universe either. Is God not a part of “all that is”? Does he exist? If so then he must have existed within the concept of “all that is” – the universe. No universe, no God.

And if the universe had no beginning – and the Big Bang can not be construed as the beginning of “all that is” – then St. Augustine may be right. Time began when the universe began; the universe always was and always will be (in one shape or another) therefore time always was and always will be.

Mr. Hawking, Mr. Sagan and others in the scientific community I don’t think are/were big on philosophy. They know their math but seem short on logic and semantics.
This book to me is pretty much an exercise in scientific madness (time going backwards, the universe collapsing, parallel universes, universes that are cone shaped, or infinite but finite and limited) but it is not just Mr. Hawking who has gone mad. He has a whole bunch lined up to jump off the edge of the universe and splatter on the nothingness below following eagerly behind him.

2011-03-16T20:15:00.004-04:00

Read my review of Bruce Watson's great book about the Bread and Roses Strike and take a look at my book "America on Strike" while you are at it. Click on book cover at right on this page.

Bruce Watson

Mills, Migrants, and the American Dream

Bread and Roses - 1912

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

My discovery of the Bread and Roses Strike of 1912 in Lawrence, Massachusetts has provided me with an extremely interesting source of intellectual and personal insight.

Although I was born in Baltimore, Maryland my life from a few months old to age 27 was spent in Lawrence, Mass. My father and my mother were ex-mill workers - as were their fathers and mothers. My father was from the established English heritage and my mother descended from the later Eastern European migration. She was Polish.
I only worked briefly as did my older brother in a reconstituted worked-over enterprise that rented old mill space after the mills were abandoned by their textile owners. But even though I never worked in a textile mill, those mills played an ominous and hauntingly important part in my life.

The original mills were the reason for being for the city of Lawrence. First God built the mills and then he sent the people to work them. The mills came first and the people came second - and that is the history of the mills of Lawrence - and maybe mill towns all over America. And it is always interesting to me that when it was all over what was left was row upon row of empty red brick pyramids and mile after mile of drained sapped people and landscape. It was like a war zone where the weapon of choice was not explosives but a psychological sort of Neutron bomb.
Fighting for the jobs and positions at the mills basically determined the social status of the populous. From the 1840s to the 1950s the mills were the heart and soul and supplied the bread and the few roses that might have been scattered here and there throughout the city.

From approximately the time of my birth forward the mills were on a steady decline and by the end of World War II the mills had for the most part abandoned Lawrence. Unemployment through the late forties and onward through the fifties rose to over forty percent. That was a number that I had been seeking for quite some time. The 1929 Depression was only 30% unemployment. I knew the situation was serious because my dad was one of that 40%, but as is always the case - even with 40% unemployed, 60%still had a job. That 60% living at the time knew only too well how lucky they were, but their descendents have long since forgotten – or were never even made aware of the hardship of their neighbors. I found that 40% figure in this book by Mr. Watson.
Another question that had perplexed me is why I had never heard of this strike; why I had never seen any monuments in the city parks; why my parents and relatives never spoke of it; why the Nuns in grade school never mentioned such an event even in passing; why the Brothers didn’t teach it in high school; and the bigger question why the history books ignored the American labor movement almost entirely.

I first got interested in this subject matter by discovering, quite by accident, the Bread and Roses Strike. Researching this strike then led me to the labor movement in the U.S. and then in the world.

For me making this discovery was like finding the missing link or the lost piece of the puzzle. I truly feel now that understanding labor history or the history of the labor movement is the Rosetta Stone for interpreting our modern civilization. This is where our modern history begins - and this period in man’s evolution has not come to an end yet. It is the latest episode in a long continuous battle for freedom, dignity and equality.

Mr. Watson explains in his Epilogue that the history of the Lawrence Bread and Roses Strike was suppressed in the area because it had been a brand of shame for the city as a whole throughout the entire U.S. and throughout the world. Lawrence became a poster child for how not to handle a mill strike and how not to treat new immigrants, working women and children in America. The City (establishment) of Lawrence had been disgraced and shamed and they then proceeded to propagandize a “cover” story or a rationalization to hide and cover over what they had done and what had actually happened. And it worked because all that remained for the rest of the century was their version of the event. It is only until recently that the whole truth of the matter has been seeping out.

It seems to me that this is basically the same story with regards to the American Labor Movement. And the truth about it is also beginning to seep out.
Just as the Germans have been the last to admit the horror of the holocaust and the Japanese the last to accept the Rape of Nanking and their other World War II atrocities, America will be the last to admit its persecution of the working class and the working poor. America hates poverty - and it hates to accept or admit the fact of it even more.

America is filled with poverty, slums and industrial blight and it seems that it always has been - but yet most Americans will deny its very existence - and so it goes on and on and on.

Reading this book was more than a history lesson for me. Since I was raised in the area, every street name brought back an old memory; all the family names brought back friends and neighbors; and the stories brought back reason and insight into many personal mysteries.

I really enjoyed this book and I’m happy Mr. Watson wrote it. I will ad it to my collection of Lawrence memorabilia and labor union history.

I am left with the desire to read more about Lawrence and I know from other reading that there is a lot more to read. Every open door leads to another door yet to be opened.

Very surprising to me is the discovery that at Cornell University there is actually a school of Industrial and Labor Relations that offers a four year degree in labor studies. It was started in 1945 and is the only college in the United States offering such a degree. I intend to do a good deal of reading and learning at their web site. It should be fun.

Bread and Roses by Bruce Watson is a great read for anyone interested in history in general, and the Labor Movement in particular. This book should be required reading in every high school in the Greater Lawrence area - but I have no doubt that it is not and will not be in the future.

2011-03-06T15:43:00.001-05:00

Fortress America

By William Greider

Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

Fortress America was published in 1998. At the time of the publishing of this book the Berlin Wall was gone and the U.S.S.R. had collapsed. With the disappearance of Russia as Public Enemy # 1 for the U.S., America was now in a quandary. The Cold War was over. What do we do about our massive military? Our Cold War enemy was gone. The Russian threat to our security was gone. Should we dismantle our military? Reorganize? Downsize? How do we do it?

Fortress America is a book that analyzed the problem in store for the U.S. in downsizing it military capacities.

I’m sure it was not Mr. Greider’s intention to present an apology on the impossibility of downsizing our military and the necessity for America to seek new enemies and unnecessary but available wars but this book, in my opinion, is a blueprint for just such a scenario.

Mr. Greider in his thought provoking manner, his exhaustive research and his presentation of the facts and figures, makes our present state of affairs obvious.
“If the world is at peace, why should America now have to remobilize? There are no persuasive answers at present.

“To justify the significant budget increases that might rescue the military from its dilemma of competing obligations, political leaders will first have to find convincing dangers – a rising threat of actual war, and on a very large scale. Until they can do so, military leaders must keep hacking away at their own institution … People in the armed services know this…
“The political base that always supported the Cold War defense structure endures, too, without a strategy for the future except to change as little as possible from the past.”

Mr. Greider goes on to talk about our “Military Socialism” and our basic socialized military industrial complex. He then explains the scope of this book.

“In short, our tour of Fortress America is about more than defense spending in an era of general peace. It’s about national vision and the limits of empire, about whether Americans really wish to govern the world with U.S. military power …
“This is a new world order that will require much more than the accumulation of weaponry, and it might even be subverted by a new global arms race.” (My italics)
Now let me point out, I haven’t left the introduction to this book yet; we have yet to hit page one.

The book begins with a tour of the massive weapons storage facilities at Fort Hood, Texas. Bradley fighting vehicles, Dragon missiles, M-1 Abrams main battle tanks, Humvees , HEMTTs, HETS, and more than two hundred Apache and Kiowa helicopters. There are forty eight separate equipment yards at Fort Hood – miles and miles of parking spaces with multimillion dollar units in every parking space.

“The Cold War is over, but not really, not yet …Too many tanks with nowhere to send them ... Defense spending, as one strategic analyst put it, has become ‘the new third rail of American politics.’ Most politicians are afraid to touch it.”

Then we come to the panic of peace.

“The Pentagon has been dumping old tanks like an army-navy surplus store conducting frantic ‘going out of business’ sales. Giving them away to friendly nations. Selling them at deep discounts. Offering them free to local museums. It dumped one hundred old Sherman M-60s into Mobile Bay off the Alabama coast to form artificial reefs for fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Several hundred more are being sunk along other coastlines for the same purpose. One year it gave forty-five tanks free to Bosnia and another fifty to Jordan. It shipped ninety-one tanks to Brazil under a no cost, five year lease, and thirty to Bahrain on the same terms. Another 160 were sold to Taiwan for $130,000 each, priced at ten cents on the dollar. Egypt got seven hundred free by picking up transportation costs … One way or another the Army has disposed of nearly six thousand older (1980 models) tanks during the last six years.”

To actually train men on all our fancy fighting equipment is too costly “It takes two thousand dollars an hour to operate a single M-12 tank in the field.” Instead we pay to build simulators. We have 25 million in video games sitting in one of our military video arcades.

Well, why don’t we mothball everything and then pull it out when we need it?
Unfortunately we can’t mothball very much in our new high-tech military. The electronics deteriorate; the crews take years to train, not weeks; things must be upgraded to stay on top or ahead of the competition. And in many cases we seem to be our own competition. Our independent “capitalist” arms merchants are selling to the highest bidder in the free market global arms race. Of course, we get dibs on the latest, most modern stuff – as long as we subsidize our arms manufactures with their storage costs, their labor costs and their research and development costs – cost plus contracts are nice too. And the fact that all American National arms merchants are basically one big interlocking network, doesn’t hurt the bottom line either.

The first time I read about this technique of selling to potential enemies was in The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester. When Adolf Hitler demanded the German arms manufacturer, Krupp, to stop selling arms to Germany’s enemies, Krupp threatened to take his whole operation, his knowledge and expertise, to Russia. Hitler and Mr. Krupp made a compromise. Krupp agreed to sell only last year’s models to Germany’s enemies. Hitler acquiesced.

They tried to dismantle Krupp industries after the war but found the task impossible. They denied Krupp the right to practice his “craft” in Germany. Kupp went to China and then to other international sites and became one of the richest men alive in his day.

“After the Cold War ended, the government added 2,662 Tomahawks and other missiles to its arsenal. It increased air power capabilities by modernizing 961 night-capable aircraft and 707 precision-guided munitions-capable aircraft.

“The Air Force has so many long range bombers – the old reliable B-52, the troubled B-1, the new stealthy B-2 that costs 2 billion apiece – that it cannot afford to keep them all in the air. Yet, if you can believe its plans, the Air Force intends to increase the operational bomber force 25 percent by 2001.”

But there is always hope Mr. Greider explains: “After all there is always the dim hope that somehow the circumstances will change. Maybe North Korea will invade South Korea. Maybe China will turn belligerent. The (our) nation’s political and military leaders seem to be searching forlornly for a “they” that can restore purpose to the country’s mighty armaments.”

If the reader hasn’t got the point yet, Mr. Greider takes us to a few more military bases and arms storage facilities. The costs are monumental.

Mr. Greider then takes us for a brief look at the investment side of Arms merchandising.

“A decade ago, fifteen leading contractors accounted for two-thirds of the Pentagon’s spending on weapons. By 1995 the list was down to eight. Now, (1998) there are three.”

“The companies can’t keep boosting stock prices by doing more takeovers since there’s nothing much to take over.”

“The point people miss,” Gansler says, “is not that the defense companies are making huge profits. It’s that they’re charging huge costs to government to pay for all of this excess capacity that they’ve got lying around. The government pays for all that. The problem is, if a company becomes a sole-source contractor and there is no competition, then they have no incentive to reduce costs.”

Now it is onto the Global market place.

“We’re serious about being a global company, and that means expanding our workforce outside the United States,” says Lockheed Martin.

“LockMartin itself combines seventeen different companies that have collectively eliminated more than one hundred thousand jobs.”

“The American motive for expanding NATO is selling weapons.” American arms producers are loaning new NATO countries the money to buy their weapons and then moving their factories to these countries.”

Now you know why Poland was upset with President Obama with the new Obama European defense strategy. We were rabidly approaching the boom days of the “Merchants of Death” back in the pre-World War I era – sell weapons to anybody, lie, cheat, steal but sell, sell, sell.

“Provoking inadvertent crisis may be profitable for weapons firms, but it does not seem to be in the national interest – or for that matter the world’s.”

I suggest that you all read Merchants of Death by Engelbrecht and Hanighen. You may have to hunt your library for it, but it will be worth your effort if your goal is to understand the present times. You can also read about the life and times of Sir Basil Zaharoff.

But what for the future? Can we bend the Iron Triangle (Pentagon, military, government). Can we design a meaner leaner military? Can we cut, lower costs, contain, or redesign our mammoth military complex?

“Even if futuristic ideas prove to be sound, the pentagon and the arms industry are still reluctant to give up what already exists – their vast arsenal of conventional overkill. They cannot have it both ways, one would think, but so far they are doing their best to accomplish just that, with very little resistance from the political system.”

In his conclusion Mr. Greider says that first the American people must “say no to empire.”

“The global economic system, led by the United States, governs trade, financial markets, and the rights of capital by imposing complex rules but insists that fundamental human freedoms are not a legitimate basis for global regulation. Raising questions of environmental protection, labor rights, or social equity – not to mention the democratic principles of free speech and freedom of assembly – is described as an intrusion on the trading system, possibly even an impediment to the spread of prosperity. National sovereignty (including America’s) is told to yield to the efficiencies of the global enterprise.”

Mr. Greider goes on and on with one good suggestion after another on transitioning from a militarist nation to a less militarist nation, but that is now all behind us and this book falls into the category of wasted effort.

In retrospect we see that Mr. Greider had it right in his introduction. Finding new wars to fight and devising a new Cold War was easier and much less demanding than attempting to restructure the Iron Triangle and bring America back to a peace loving, cooperative nation.

So if you are wondering why we have two wars going and military spending through the roof, you might pick up Mr. Greider’s book Fortress America for a description of the details. But it appears clear to me – war is easier and more profitable than peace – especially when our system has been set up to deal with it for the last 100 years. We can’t afford peace we have too much investment in war. Sadly achieving peace is too costly and too complicated. If you are hoping for an end to this “bully-bully” warmongering mentality it is going to take a lot more than wishful thinking.

2011-02-25T07:55:00.001-05:00

Agrarian Justice / Tom Paine

[The following is an organized series of excerpts from Tom Paine’s essay “Agrarian Justice”. A better understanding of his argument is gained from reading the essay in its entirety. I thought that this piece would be of special interest to those political Conservatives who have of late been claiming Tom Paine as one of their own.]

By Richard E. Noble

“It is wrong to say that God made rich and poor; he made only male and female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance.”

Argument for improving the condition of the unpropertied

“To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy, at the same time, the evil it has produced, ought to be considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation ... The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized.

“To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which property and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets of Europe. Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life ... Civilization, therefore, or that which is so called, has operated two ways, to make one part of society more affluent and the other part more wretched than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.

“The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state.

“Taking the matter then upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period. But the fact is that the condition of millions in every country ... is far worse than if they had been born before civilization began, or had been born among the Indians of North America of the present day. I will show how this fact has happened.

“It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state, was and ever would have continued to be the common property of the human race ... And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true that it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land owes to the community a ground rent...

“... neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Job, so far as the history of the Bible may be credited in probable things, were owners of the land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated, in flocks and herds and they traveled with them from place to place.

“Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue ... when cultivation began, the idea of landed property began with it ... It is only by tracing things to their origin that we can gain rightful ideas of them …The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was submitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited from them, or who purchased it. I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his ... it is a right and not a charity that I am pleading for.

“To create a National fund out of which there shall be paid to every person, who arrived at the age of twenty-one, the sum of Fifteen Pounds sterling, as a compensation in part for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property; and also the sum of Ten Pounds per Annum during life to every person now living of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

“The fault is in the system, and it had stolen imperceptibly upon the world, aided afterwards by the Agrarian law of the sword … It is proposed that the payments, as already stated, be paid to every person, rich or poor such persons as do not choose to receive it can throw it into the common fund.

“Taking it then for granted that no person ought to be in a worse condition when born under what is called a state of civilization, than he would have been had he been born in a state of nature, and that civilization ought to have made, and ought still to make, provision for that purpose, it can only be done by subtracting from property a portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has absorbed ... it will be the least troublesome and the most effectual, and also because the subtraction will be made at a time that best admits it, which is at the moment that property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case the bequeather gives nothing; the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would wish it not to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished.

“It will always happen that the property thus revolving by death every year, part will descend in a direct line to sons and daughters, and the other part collaterally, and the proportion will be found to be about three to one; that is, about thirty millions of the above sum will descend to direct heirs, and the remaining sum ... to more distant relations and part to strangers.

“It is not charity but a right - not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for ... though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches, because they are capable of good. I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, whilst so much misery is mingled in the scene.

“There are in every country some magnificent charities established by individuals ... It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed ... The plan here proposed ... (It) will immediately relieve and take out of view three classes of wretchedness: the blind, the lame, and the aged poor.

“When a young couple begin in the world, the difference is exceedingly great, whether they begin with nothing or with fifteen pounds apiece. With this aid they could buy a cow and implements to cultivate a few acres of land; and instead of becoming burdens upon society, which is always the case where children are produced faster than they can be fed, they would be put in the way of becoming useful and profitable citizens.

“The great mass of the poor in all countries are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impossible for them to get out of that state of themselves. It ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all the countries that are called civilized. More persons fall annually into it than get out of it.

“It is from the overgrown acquisition of property that the fund will support itself ... War ... has already laid on more new taxes to be raised annually upon the people ... than would annually pay all the sums proposed in this plan.

“Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society, and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without aid of society as it is for him to make land originally. Separate the individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he can not acquire personal property. He can not become rich ... All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands can produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came ... if we examine the case minutely, it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effects of paying too little for the labor that produced it.
“It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for injustice, that were a working man to receive an increase of wages daily, he would not save it against old age nor be much the better for it in the interim. Make then society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that because he might not make a good use of it for himself, that another shall take it.

“When wealth and splendor, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; when instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult upon wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves to call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security. When the more riches a man acquires, the better it will be for the general mass; it is then that the antipathies will cease and property be placed on the permanent basis of natural interest and protection.”

2011-02-18T13:23:00.004-05:00

This is a book review about a book from our Eastpoint area. It is an interesting and entertaining read. Check out my book "The Eastpointer" while you are looking. For more information on "Potluck" you will have to go to Amazon but for info on "The Eastpointer" click on book cover to right on this page.

Potluck

By Jack Rudloe

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

My wife and I live in Eastpoint Fl. Eastpoint is known as the oyster capital of Florida. My wife and I caught oysters for our livelihood for over a decade. We were “oyster people” or seafood workers. Our neighborhood is filled with shrimpers and crabbers and seafood workers of all types and kinds. The characters in this book are my neighbors and fellow workers.

Mr. Rudloe does an excellent job in capturing us seafood workers as we really are. And I know why he was able to accomplish this. He lives in Panacea which is just east of Eastpoint where I live and write my books. He works hand in hand with seafood workers. He has worked as a shrimper on shrimp boats. He has spent much of his life in this seafood district, living and working side by side with seafood workers. He knows the people that he has described in this work. I am sure that every character in this book is based on a real life person that Jack has known from the neighborhood.

Mr. Rudloe has established a marine laboratory in Panacea. He is a scientist by occupation and a fiction writer by avocation. He and his wife write books of a technical nature on marine biology. I have read and reviewed a few.

What I enjoy most about Mr. Rudloe’s books is his ability to speak to the common man. He makes science and marine biology fun to read. And in his fiction, likewise, I admire his ability to create down to earth, recognizable regular folks, living and playing in true to life fashion. This book is a perfect example of his “common” touch.

The book is a work of fiction. But there was a time in this area when events such as those described in this work by the author were commonplace. Smuggling drugs in from the Gulf waters by shrimpers and seafood workers, even oystermen, went on. Bales of marijuana were found floating around in Apalachicola Bay, just outside my door.

Everybody around this neighborhood knows about it and can give you many, many justifiable reasons why their cousin Floy, Roy or Coy may have been involved in this illegal practice. There are many adventure stories of this type and nature that can be told by many a small boat captain, now retired, living around here. I could write a few myself.

I thought this book was great fun. For me it was hardly fiction and some of the stories and scenes described by the author, in my humble opinion, could warrant investigation by the proper authorities. I’m just kidding, of course. This is a work of fiction but written in such a manner that it is more than believable.

I know this author and have met him personally. I had always considered him to be a scientist and a very knowledgeable person. I did not expect his fiction to be so entertaining, creative, realistic, and down right enjoyable.

This is a good one to read, lots of fun and entertainment and actually a little real history to boot. Things like this did happen around here. They sure ‘nuff did.

2011-02-17T18:50:00.002-05:00

Tevye The Dairyman
And
The Railroad Stories

By Sholem Aleichem

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

In the Jewish community Sholem (Rabinovich) Aleichem is considered a classic. His character, Tevye the Dairyman, is the very same character we encounter in that wonderful musical “Fiddler on the Roof.” It is this group of stories by Sholem Aleichem on which the musical play is based.

I have enjoyed the music and the play, Fiddler on the Roof, for years. It just recently occurred to me that this great tale immortalized in the play must have had an author. I then discovered Sholem Aleichem.

Sholem Aleichem is a pseudonym used by the author to protect himself and his job as “crown rabbi,” a state appointed clerical position for a Jewish community in the Russian Ukraine. In Yiddish it translates to “Hello There.”

I must say that the story of Tevye the Dairyman and his wife and daughters may be the most impressive bit of fiction story writing that I have ever read. I have been trying to think of some great American writers to compare this man to, but no one comes to mind. This author stands out as a one of a kind.

The manner in which the author presents hope and despair simultaneously is only equaled by his ability to provoke laugher and tears also simultaneously.

I suppose some might be turned off by the “ethnic” nature of the stories but the stories were, in fact, written originally in Yiddish and were directed to a Jewish audience. Only via the efforts of the translator, Hillel Halkin, are we, the general audience, provided the privilege of enjoying this joyous celebration of the tragedy of life – in specific, the quite unique life of the historical Jewish community.

The “Jewish Experience,” as it is often called, is an unfortunate experience that is mimicked over and over for every generation of Jew and millions of non-Jew around the world. It is, of course, the all too familiar story of bigotry, prejudice, persecution and perseverance.

How the author incorporates, God, religion, politics, wealth, poverty and the day to day trials and tribulations of the everyday existence of a poor, struggling family man is an accomplishment certainly deserving of classical praise. All this and it is very, very funny too. Writers around the world dream of having this capacity. This kind of writing is what writing is all about. Enough said.

This is two books in one. In “The Railroad Stories” we go from the sublime to the prejudice. We leave the wonderful universal character of Tevye and we go commuting on the railroad. These stories display openly every imaginable type of prejudice existing at the time. Every main character is a “Jew.” There are tall Jews, short Jew, pompous ass Jews, well-off Jews … Jew after Jew after Jew. But then, of course, this is a book written by a Jew in Yiddish for consumption by other Jews. But I doubt that in today’s world this attitude would be considered acceptable even within the Jewish community.

We see the stereotypical conniving, manipulative male Jewish character, and their overbearing and demanding wives – often referred to as “cows,” their obnoxious children, useless relatives and so on. We are continually faced with the dumb goy, the brick-headed Russian, and the obnoxious, hypocritical Christians.

But if the modern, reader can get past all of this and understand the history of it all, it becomes a cleaver study in the evolution of divergent cultures.

The narrator introduces the reader to each new train car passenger and then the passenger narrates his tale. Difficult for an editor to punctuate but easy to read.
Being my age, I associate the style and attitude of each narrator with older stand-up Jewish comedians like Alan King and then Molly Goldberg. But Alan and Molly are ethnic but universal. They are heavy on style or even sarcasm but avoid the roughness of Sholem Aleichem in these railroad tales.

Many of the stories are truly hilarious – but there is always that underriding crudeness and bigotry. I don’t know what the younger audience would think of these type stories today. I’m left with very mixed emotions.

Tevye the Dairyman I give five stars. I would give it more if there were more available to award. The Railroad Stories get only three stars. I liked them but … but they are difficult. Clearly the other is attempting to bond with the Jew of his era and local. The bonding is obvious and the author makes his case clear in the last story. This is a book directed at “third class” Jews.

2011-02-02T21:19:00.003-05:00

Banking and Money

By Richard E. Noble

Despite comments to the contrary by John Kenneth Galbraith in his book,” Money: Whence it Came and Where it Went,” I have found Money And Banking very perplexing. Mr. Gaibraith said that money was very simple and that anyone could understand it. I don’t think so. Not only that, I have come to the conclusion that the whole Banking thing was a scam, almost, from the beginning. Let me explain my confusion.

In the beginning, there came about the first Bank. This first bank was basically a vault. People who had accumulated large amounts of gold, and silver got tired of trying to hide it under the floor boards of their cabins, or in a secret place behind the fireplace. So, when they heard that some guy had opened up a Bank where they could put their gold and silver and have it guarded and protected, they were very pleased.

These wealthy people with surplus gold and silver took their money down to this Bank and “deposited” it. The Bank owner gave these people a receipt. This receipt was a certificate of deposit. It affirmed that “So and So” had “X” amount of gold or silver stored in this Bank. Up until this point everything seems to be on the up and up.

The people who had the receipts began to trade these receipts as if they were actually gold or silver. This became accepted as legal and legitimate by most people. To have this certificate of deposit in your possession was as good as having the actual gold or silver. Up to this point I think everything is still legitimate. This next evolution is where things begin to go haywire.

The man who owns the Bank has a bright idea. He thinks that it is a shame to have all this gold and silver sitting in his vault when there are so many good, trustworthy people out there in the world who could put it to good use – and would be willing to pay for that opportunity. He talks with his certificate of deposit holders and suggests to them that if they would be willing to loan out their accumulated assets, instead of paying a service charge for the privilege of having their gold and silver protected in his vault, they could actually receive a dividend.
This is, in my opinion, where everything goes coo-coo. Without getting into the obvious problems involved in the recording of assets and debits and who has what, and just sticking to the basic principles involved, I see a big problem here.

The problem stated simply is this: Mr. Jones has deposited, $1,000 in gold. He has a certificate to prove it. Mr. Smith has borrowed Mr. Jones’ $1,000 and he has a loan contract to prove it. But the Bank now has nothing in its vault but a promise. Now this all would have been okay if Mr. Jones understood that until his loan was paid back by Mr. Smith, he didn’t have access to his $1,000 anymore. But as we all know, this did not turn out to be the eventual case.

So, as time rolled on and people deposited money and others borrowed that money, the Bank recorded assets into the millions, and all the while it could really not have a cent or an once of gold in its vault. The Bank could have nothing but a ledger full of promises and no gold at all. When you think about all of this it begins to sound like that old Abbot and Costello routine – quick here’s two tens, gimme a five.
So, was all of this legal?

Well, legal or not legal, most people didn’t really understand what was going on. And because of this lack of understanding, we had Jimmy Stewart standing on the top of the counter at his local bank trying to explain to the bank customers that there was nothing wrong in the fact that the bank had no money to give to its depositors.

Jimmy explained that the depositors money had been reinvested in their own communities. This knowledge satiated the riotous crowd in the movie. That fact really didn't solve the problem but it made the depositors feel better. Today even this is no longer true. Depositors invest in American banks. American banks invest in the stock market which invests in the global economy or directly overseas.

American savings are thus being used to support overseas competitors. Americans are paying for their country's financial undermining, it appears to me.

In the movie everyone understood what Jimmy was saying, but in real America nobody got it. They called this phenomena “The Bank Run.”

The Bankers tried everything that their cleaver little imaginations could come up with, but nothing seemed to work – the people still didn’t get it – and one might ask: What was there to get?

Banks got together and formed coalitions. They each kept a percentage of their deposits in reserve and if one of their coalition experienced a run – they ran to its rescue with bags of money in temporary loans. This worked for awhile for small runs, but when large numbers of people began to panic about the whereabouts of their life’s savings, whole coalitions were “bank-rupted.”

So, at this point, we have a good many problems with Banks. This problem could have been solved by not allowing banks to loan out other people’s money; or by turning a bank into some sort of investment fund – like the stock market – where the risks were explained to the depositors and they were given the choice to participate or not participate. I would have to say that what the banks were doing if not illegal, it was certainly morally suspect. They were promoting the unsubstantiated notion that they had people’s money when, in truth, they did not. This is similar to the well known Ponzi scam today. There was another guy by the name of Say – but he was not as obvious as Ponzi.

Ponzi’s idea was to get people to invest in him today on the promise of a large return on their investment tomorrow. The fact is that he had no investment program whatsoever and he simply manipulated the large sums of money coming in with staggered payments going out. As long as more money was coming in than was going out, Ponzi was rich and his investors were happy. The whole thing became a matter of bookkeeping.

Now you might say that the bank is not a Ponzi scam because it has legitimate investments. This is true, but if those legitimate investments prove to be unreliable then you have the same situation as with Ponzi, nevertheless. Then we have borderline elaborations on Ponzi – gold mines out west, swamp land in Florida, the Panama Canal fiasco, and last year’s failed corn crop.

Banks have gone out of business, over the years, because they were outright Ponzi scams with no investments at all; because they made false claims about their investments; because they made legitimate investments that failed. But the problem that bothered bankers was not the morality of their initial idea but what to do about banks that made good investments but were driven out of business by a sudden lack of confidence on the part of their depositors – the bank run. How they could have their cake and eat it too. Clearly a bank could not loan out its money to entrepreneurs and still have it on hand to return to its depositors on demand.

Now, it is at this point that the system has become an impossibility. It clearly and simply does not work, and there is no solution. You can not loan out the money and still have that money readily on demand for the depositors. This is impossible. One thing can not be in two places at the same time.

But, this slight-of-hand idea was so advantageous to society because it provided money for investment, expansion and growth, that those involved in profiting from this idea wanted to devise an acceptable method for promoting what was clearly an impossibility. And thus has evolved today what we call the central banking system – and here in the U.S. – “The Federal Reserve.”

So far this system has served to perpetuate and impossible idea. For example, if when Mr. Ponzi had run into his short fall – the point at which his payments going out were greater than his payments coming in – J. P. Morgan or the Rothchilds saw in his scam enormous long term potential and therefore decided to loan him money to carry him over his temporary cash flow problem, the Ponzi scam may have continued indefinitely. But, it would have finally collapsed when Ponzi had finally reached the saturation point. That point being when there was just not enough money available in the world to make the interest payments on all of his promises. In effect Ponzi’s system was a “Designed to Fail” system.

The Central Banking System is similar but much more sophisticated and self-perpetuating. The Central Banking System does not create money from nothing as many people suggest. If it did then this system would self-destruct when the supply of money exceeded the world’s ability to absorb the funding. Would this ever take place considering expanding populations and expanding economic growth throughout the world, and product diversification and artificial demand creation for “wants” in addition to needs? Maybe not.

Inflation is simply the release valve on this money generating steam boiler. If the supply of money comes onto the world faster than the population and the various demand growth factors – you will have inflation. If inflation is allowed to grow too fast or without proper regulation then the bubble of public confidence could burst and economic collapse would be the result.

But this is not the situation which exists with the Central Banking System concept. This present system is based on debt creation. Governments borrow via a system of notes and bonds which are handled for a fee by their Central Banking systems. The central banks collect the vigorish. They handle the sales for the government for a fee – vigorish. [The vigorish is not the problem when we talk of the National Debt. The problem with the National Debt is the interest being collected by the Bond purchaser. The Federal Reserve Bank is just the salesman for the government bonds. It charges a small “commission” which is negligible.]

As I see it this system has more potential points of destruction than does the politically unappealing Creating-Money-from-Nothing System. This system can also destruct from the same causes stated in the non-debt creating system mentioned above. But in addition to this possibility this debt system can also self-destruct from other factors.

It can also self-destruct when and if the interest payment on the created debt obligations becomes greater than the government’s money supply sources. This would be much the same as if your basic payment on your credit card exceeded your income.
Will that ever happen? I don’t know. The inflation safety valve would compensate or, as above, explode due to lack of public confidence. And, of course, there is that same notion of infinite world economic expansion as mentioned above. And then, of course, the government can simply keep creating more and more debt even to pay impossible debt.

How long could such a process go on?

I don’t know. But paying debt with added debt can only go on for so long, before something negative would happen.

The vigorish could also become a problem. In other words the Central Banking fee could become so bloated as to create a debt problem in itself. In other words, the cost of the loan transaction could eventually outweigh any gain from creating the debt in the first place. Right now that fee is 7% as I understand it. If due to inflation that cost were to escalate to 20% or 30%. But by that time the monetary system would probably have already collapsed due to inflation. So maybe that is a specious argument.

An added problem with the Central Banking System is that it has been partnered by the various national governments of the countries who have such systems – which may be every country in the world as far as I know. So instead of the banking system backing itself up via a conglomerate of banking institutions and becoming the bank of last resort for all banks – as is the claim – the government becomes the bank of last resort. The problem here is that in such a system if the bankers decide that they are tired of making money “the old fashioned” way and they would rather do it the easy way. They can simply steal their depositor’s funds, and loan them out by fraudulent and deceptive transactions and then petition the treasury to fund them out of their financial difficulties.

To put this simply, if an unscrupulous banker or group of bankers can figure out a method of divesting their banks of its capital yet still create what appears to be a legitimate paper trail of investments, they can double their personal wealth rather cleverly, simply by ripping-off their Federal or National Government.

The same thing can be done on an international basis via the IMF and the World Banking System. And I am of the opinion that this type of thing has already been done several times over – not only in the historical past, but in the recent past. And it can work both ways in a world system. Not only is it possible for the world banking system to bankrupt individual nations if it so chooses; it is equally possible that cleaver national bankers can swindle the world system. [I think that this technique was used in the U.S. S&L failure and the Commercial bank failure; and in the recent stock market crash; and most recently in the real estate boom and bubble. It is my personal opinion that this is the current method for bankrupting the U.S. Treasury. It began seriously under Reagan and has been escalating under every succeeding Republican administration.

And what is the answer to all of this?

I don’t know.

2011-02-01T19:23:00.002-05:00

The National Debt

With a “Noble” Solution

Richard E. Noble

A few presidents ago the National Debt was the most pressing thing that our political leaders and political hopefuls had on their minds. Ronald Reagan in his campaign for the presidency in 1980 told us all about a stack of dollar bills stretching from the planet earth to the moon. This stack of paper money was to represent the one trillion dollar mark in our advance to national bankruptcy. Our National Debt had not yet reached this benchmark in fiscal irresponsibility and Ronald Reagan was to be our knight in shining economic armor who would stop this catastrophe from happening.

Today this stack of dollar bills is probably bumping up against the planet Pluto but we hardly hear a murmur of the once prophesied impending catastrophe. I wonder why? Was the National Debt not really a legitimate problem? Was the Great Communicator merely communicating greatly or grandiosely? What the heck is the National Debt anyway?

The National Debt is the total amount that the government currently owes from all of its past borrowing. I guess that we could safely say that it is the mortgage that our governments, past and present, have borrowed on the United States of America. A budget deficit, on the other hand, is the amount by which expenditures exceed receipts in a single year. Today there is a simple way for the lay person to distinguish between these two things - the deficit is tabulated in Billions and the National Debt is now tabulated in Trillions.

In the two hundred years B.R. (before Ronald Reagan) the entire accumulated debt of all of our previous presidents amounted to 909.1 Billion dollars. So B.R., our country’s National Debt had not yet reached one trillion dollars - that stack of dollar bills had not yet reached the moon. Now, remember, that figure included all the debt accumulated from George Washington through Jimmy Carter. That 909.1 Billion dollars included all the monies borrowed for the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam.

By the time that Ronald Reagan left office in 1988 the National Debt was 2,601.3 Billion or 2.6 Trillion. In just eight years Ronald Reagan had more than doubled what all the previous presidents from Washington through Carter had accumulated in the prior 200 years.

Okay, let’s give Ronnie a break. Let’s kick it up a notch. Let’s go to George H. W. Bush - Number Forty-One, as he is so lovingly referred to today.

Number Forty-One is the Yale graduate who accused Ronald Reagan of advocating Voodoo economics. By the time Number Forty-One left office in 1992 the National Debt was 4,002.1 Billion or approx. 4.0 Trillion dollars. If Ronald Reagan was practicing Voodoo, one must hesitate to ask what Number Forty One’s economic principles were based on. And, you know, these presidents today have a Council of Economic Advisers. The only problem with the Council of Economic Advisers is that when a Council member disagrees with the president or speaks out publicly against a president’s economic policy, he suddenly finds himself in search of a new Council to counsel.

But this is all beginning to sound like Republican bashing. Let’s go to B. J. Clinton. In my neighborhood B. J. stood for something other than Billy Jefferson, but we won’t get into that. So B. J. came into office in 1992 and by the time that he left, the National Debt was 5,606.1 Billion or 5.6 Trillion dollars. So Reagan gave us 2.6 Trillion, Number Forty-One gave us 4.0 Trillion, and B. J. gave us 5.6 Trillion.

Everyone says that what B. J. accomplished was good. Well, when it is compared to what Ronnie and Number Forty-One did, I suppose? Sounds to me like saying; Well, my Grandfather was hanged, my Daddy got the electric chair and now I’m serving life in prison. Guess that I am doing better than they did, huh? - I suppose, but most of us wouldn’t consider life in prison all that much of an accomplishment.

Today we have Bush Number Forty-Three.

Number Forty-Three has the debt up to somewhere between 7 and 8 Trillion. It is estimated that by the time that Number Forty-Three leaves office the National Debt will be somewhere around 10 Trillion dollars - give or take a Trillion. Like some famous politician once said; “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking some real money.” Billions no longer matter, it’s trillions now.
So there you go. And what does this all mean? I was listening to one economist on the TV the other day and he said;

“Economically, we are like the man who just jumped off the top of a one hundred storey building. The falling man passes the eightieth storey and a guy sticks his head out of a window and screams to the falling man; ‘How’s everything going?’
‘Everything is O.K. so far,’ the falling man replies.”

But, let’s not be pessimistic about this - you know - is the glass half-empty or is it half-full. Let us be “half-full” about all of this. It does no good to be half-empty because we are a lot worse off than half-empty. If we were only half-empty that would mean that we would still have something in our glass. At 10 Trillion dollars in debt we don’t even have a glass anymore. But whatever - let’s be positive.
Some politicians claim that the National Debt doesn’t really matter because it is money that we owe to ourselves. So even when the federal government just pays the interest on the National Debt it is infusing dollars into our economy - like giving a tax cut to the rich. But since Reagan, unfortunately, this is no longer true.
Before Reagan our government’s borrowing was financed by Americans. After Reagan our National Debt became so enormous that Americans didn’t have enough money to finance the Government’s borrowing - so we borrowed from foreign countries. Or would it be more economic to say that we sold our debt to foreign countries. In other words, we sold the mortgage, or foreigners bought our mortgage. Now countries like Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, the U.K etc. own a good part of our mortgage. If in the last few decades, it has appeared to you that your government has been acting like a foreign country, this may be a part of the reason.

But certainly, one day, we will pay off this mortgage and the American people will once again own their country?

This does not even seem to be in the realm of possibility. Politicians talk of balancing the budget as they did in the year 1999 for the first time in many decades. By the way, this supposed surplus that we had, momentarily, was only accomplished by pilfering money from the Social Security Trust Fund. Excess monies had been accumulated in the Social Security Trust Fund because of an increase in the Social Security tax in 1983. An increase was mandated to compensate for the baby boomers. From that year on, the Social Security had a surplus but everybody from Reagan to Clinton used the Social Security surpluses for other general fund spending purposes.

Balancing the budget - or having a year in which the government does not produce a deficit by spending more money than it receives - only manages to pay the interest on the National Debt. A balanced budget pays nothing on the principal or the debt itself. In order to pay down the debt itself, the government must create a surplus - spend less money than what it takes in every year. And then use those surplus monies to buy back Debt (treasury bonds).

Is this a possibility? Seems not. I have never heard a politician in my lifetime talk of paying down the principal on the National Debt. The political answer to the National Debt seems to be like our policy towards gays in the military - don’t ask; don’t tell.

So, I was thinking, why don’t we sell all of our mortgage to foreign countries and then claim bankruptcy. The only way these countries could get their money is if they have a bigger army than ours.

Or maybe these foreign countries who own our debt would forgive our debt like the World Bank sometimes does for under-developed countries - or like we did after World War II for a number of countries. But, of course, this is all ridiculous - we’re the richest country in the world, remember? Well, if we are the richest country in the world, why don’t we just pay everybody off?

Because we don’t have the money. So we are the richest country in the world but we don’t have the money to pay our debts - our mortgage anyway. I have many friends who are rich in a similar manner. How can we be rich and, at the same time, be the biggest debtor nation in the world? Are we rich, or aren’t we?

But don’t despair, I have more realistic solutions to this problem than depending on the charity of the rest of the world. I wouldn’t expect or hold my hope out for a European Marshall Plan for the U.S.A. either folks. My solutions are dynamic and they don’t involve raising taxes.

Today we have approximately 200 million working people, or tax paying people in America. These 200 million people pay about 1.2 trillion dollars in taxes each year. If we can increase the working population of the United States about 10 times its present number and we tax them all at the present rate, we would have a national income of 10 or 11 trillion a year. So then, if we could get our government to put one trillion aside each year, we could pay off the National Debt in about 10 or 11 years. I admit, this solution has its problems but, come on - is the glass half-empty or is it half-full? This would take care of any Social Security short fall also, I might add.

My second idea is even better. We don’t need any new taxes or new workers. This idea is a classic.

We simply continue with Number Forty-Three’s borrow and spend policies. As all of us economists know this can do nothing but increase the rate of inflation - but that’s good. If we can get the inflation rate to rise faster than the rate at which Number Forty-Three and his successors can borrow, one day we will have more pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents on them than we have debt to pay.

This is that same idea that they told you about a few years ago. Remember they said; Buy yourself a big house that you can barely afford now, and pay off your balloon mortgage – twenty years later - with cheap, inflated money from your naturally escalating high paying job.

The Germans tried this print-more-money idea after World War I. It worked real well. They had a few minor problems. Like trying to figure out how many wheelbarrows full of paper money it would take to buy a loaf of bread. But so what, I mean, look at Germany today? They’re doing all right.

So there you go - is the glass half-empty or is it half-full. What me worry? Just call me Alfred E. Newman. To tell you the truth when I look at the past illegal immigration rate and the true rate of inflation over the last few decades, I think that my two suggestions are the government’s plan - or has been anyway. In 1974 I bought a Chevy van for $3,400, today a similar van sells for $34,000. I think that the inflation rate has been somewhat greater than the presently claimed 2.2%.
My advise to the next two generations of Americans is - buy wheelbarrows.
I have one other idea.

When the government spends more than it collects every year - it borrows. It prints up Treasury Notes and Bonds etc. Then it has the Federal Reserve - its personal banker - sell them to Americans and foreigner investors and foreign countries, at a specified interest rate. This is what makes our National Debt. This puts the government in a catch-22 situation. It can’t raise taxes - nobody likes that. It can’t charge tariffs on products coming into the country and put the cost of our government onto foreign countries and foreign manufactures. It could do this, especially when one considers that we now import 80% of what is sold here domestically - but it can’t, because we believe in “free trade”. Besides, most of our imports are from American based companies who went over seas to avoid paying taxes and hire cheaper labor in the fist place. Raising tariff rates would spoil their whole plan. So then how else could the government earn some money to pay its bills?

It could rent out rooms at the White House - but that is how we finance our political campaigns. So what can the government do?

Well, how about just printing up so much money every year and buying back some reasonable portion of our debt, without going through the debt making process of selling Treasury Notes, Bonds and Bills etc. via the Federal Reserve?

The first thing that everybody yells and screams about this idea is that it is inflationary. Yeah? And borrowing and creating more debt via the Federal Reserve and selling our country to China is better and un-inflationary? I suggest that we pass a law allowing only a certain percentage to be printed up in this manner - taking into consideration GNP and Inflation and the predictable population and economic growth.
The second problem with this idea is that it is against the Constitution. Yeah! So who gives a flying flip? This hasn’t stopped the last five or seven administrations from doing anything. Why should it stop us on anything as important as this? Besides, the Constitution on this particular point could very easily be reinterpreted - we wouldn’t even be forced to change anything or seek a Constitutional Amendment.

The next complaint with this idea is that when the American people and the other nations of the world find out about this shenanigans they will lose faith in our government.

I don’t think so - no one understands economics anyway. And if you think that will be the case, don’t tell them. As the debt miraculously goes down gradually every year, just tell everybody that it is because of good business management on the part of that particular administration - cook the books; or just add it to the total of taxes collected, nobody will know the difference; or tell everybody that it is a miracle. Everybody believes in miracles these days. When the press investigates and discovers that what is happening is economically impossible - just lie to them, like we do on everything else. What is the problem here?

As for the American people? What the heck do they care? They’re too busy trying to make a living to start trying to comprehend economics - least of all the Federal Reserve System. And need I point out that at this point in world economics – if the U.S. currency fails – the entire world economy fails. U.S. dollars are now used around the world in place of Gold. The U.S. dollar is today’s gold.

The bottom line is this: Printing money and skipping the Federal Reserve will no doubt create some inflation. But, using that money to buy back Treasury Bonds (Debt.) will be anti-inflationary. On the one hand, we are printing money to put into circulation, but using it to take money out of circulation by reclaiming debt on the other. If it is done properly - with due diligence - the one will cancel out the other and America will one day be debt free and it will cost nobody anything. This will not be a loss or gain - it will simply be a monetary transfer. We will transfer a bunch of one type of paper for another type of paper. If it is done right, nobody will know the difference. And if we want to add an additional check on inflation, when we start buying back our treasury bonds from the Federal Reserve with our “free paper”, temporarily raise the required reserve security demands. In other words, if the banks are required to hold 10% in reserve - raise that requirement to 12% or whatever. Then as time goes on and we see that inflation is under control, lower the requirement.

The last criticism that I can think of is that this idea would be putting trust in our government to do the right thing and keep things under control. In other words, somebody has to be sure that they don’t print up too much money every year. So set up an oversight committee - with the Federal Reserve Board, if that will make you happy. They will not like the basic idea in the first place - but they will just have to deal with it. As it is now, they (the Banks) are the only ones who profit from this National Debt business - so they like it; but if the debt is allowed to continue growing, it will mean possible bankruptcy for them and everybody else. As it is now the only hope for the world economy is continued projected economic growth, coupled with reasonable inflation. Today we have inflation and debt. With this suggestion we will still have the inflation - but we will eliminate the debt. And it is the Debt that will eventually kill us, not the inflation. The world can live with a controlled inflation - it has for centuries. And if this is done correctly we will have no more inflation than what is currently being created. Besides, there aren’t any good choices here; you can trust your government or you can trust the Federal Reserve and the International Banking community.

As I said earlier, facetiously, Germany did this but failed and bankrupted their country after World War I. But the Germans wanted to bankrupt their currency. They didn’t want to pay off their war debts and the smart money wanted to turn the middle class against the occupation government. So they simply printed up paper until it filled wheelbarrows. They did not use due diligence and have proper controls. They didn’t care. What they did was not an accident. It was a planned bankruptcy. You can be sure that the big boys in German currency had all their cash in something other than the Mark. Of course, there is the possibility that our National Debt is also planned. The design of the plan being to keep the general population thinking that they are broke, so that they won’t be suggesting any “free” social programs for the “welfare” state. I mean, you must have noticed that no matter how large the National Debt, we always have enough money for another war.

Post Script: Quantitative Easing:

If I am understanding this concept correctly, the FED is now “creating” debt free money and using it to buy back interest bearing notes from China and elsewhere. So the FED is doing what I suggested in the above article that the Government do. Now, the FED should burn these interest bearing notes that they are purchasing with this FREE money. Eventually the entire National Debt could be done away with in this manner with no cost to the government or the taxpayers and no budget cuts. My guess is that the FED will not do this. It will hold those notes and then resell them at a better time, thus giving any possible profits to the banking system and not the taxpayers. I don't think the FED is allowed to collect interest on its purchase and sales for the government. It collects a fee to cover its expenses.

But buying Treasury Notes with cash or increased non-interest bearing currency and destroying them would reduce the debt burden of the country but the increase in currency will be inflationary (initially to China or whoever). But as long as we are in a deflationary cycle this should be fine. But if inflation raises its ugly head (if China dumps the cash on the market for example) the fractional reserve rate could be raised or the money supply tightened here at home or by others with an economic stake in U.S. Dollars. But inflation is not a problem at this point in time and the current tight bank policy is guarding the inflation more than necessary.

None of this though helps create new jobs here at home. This all saves the banks and increases their credibility. The banks are doing what is necessary for the banking industry but whether or not what is good for banks will be good for America is not clear.

2011-01-30T20:12:00.001-05:00

Exorbitant Privilege

The Decline of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System

By Barry Eichengreen

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I chose this book to read because I wanted to know more about paper money and the U.S. dollar in particular. We can learn even by reading books that we disagree with.
This book is well written, easily understandable, informative, and not beyond the scope of any student of history or economics.

I am sure that Mr. Eichengreen feels that he has presented the economic facts of life and that his analysis and conclusions are the only common sense economic alternatives. I disagree and I have no doubt that he will disagree with my criticisms of his philosophy and alternatives. But first I will give credit to the author for writing a very interesting and informative book and state some of the things that the author has taught me or made me better informed about.
I now know what the Exorbitant Privilege is.

The Exorbitant Privilege is a negative description of the advantage given to the Dollar by virtue of its being the currency of international choice. It is an actual monetary advantage that the Dollar enjoys (as high as 6%) because of its history and the fact that it has been the number one choice as a reserve currency of central banking systems throughout the world. This is a condition not necessarily admired or appreciated by other nations competing for economic equality in the world of international finance. Because of this “Exorbitant Privilege” the U.S. is able to operate with a 6% deficit spending and still break even in the international market place.

Secondly, I learned what it means to be a reserve currency. Where nations once horded precious metals, like gold and silver, in reserve to back up their paper money, they now use Dollars. The Dollar is and has been the new financial world’s gold. The Dollar is, at present, gold in 68% of the central banking systems of the world. It was once even higher but in recent years it has been challenged by the Euro. The Euro is now gold in 32% of the central banking systems of the world.
To be the reserve currency to the world gives numerous advantages but harbors many perils. Pointing out these advantages and perils is the major scope of this book as I see it.

Another smaller point of interest to me was the author’s economic insights to the famous Marshall Plan. We always hear the Marshall Plan being touted positively as the greatest act ever of generosity and sound economic thinking. Very rarely is the perilous side of this generosity expounded upon. The biggest point of interest to me is the fact that in order to perform this act of generosity the U.S. had to put its own economic position and the stability of the Dollar in jeopardy.

The author tells us that the money to supply to our European allies did not exist. It had to be printed up and in excess to the gold that backed it at the time. It was extremely inflationary and dangerous but who was to complain? Certainly not the recipients.

In today’s conservative parlance money was manufactured from nowhere. In effect, the post war world was rescued by “fiat money.” By what gold bugs would call worthless pieces of paper.

If the countries in Europe took the dollars given to them and instead of investing them in their own countries and people, chose to speculate and cash them in for gold, they could have bankrupted the U.S. treasury. They could have made themselves or a few of their bankers and super-wealthy, very rich. They didn’t because it was to their advantage not to … at first. They could become richer by using the Dollar to invest in their people and their country’s reconstruction.

By the time we arrived at the post World War II Nixon administration the economic situation had changed. Some of our European beneficiaries now felt that the U.S. had been manipulative and overly demanding with their almighty Dollar. They started turning them in for U.S. treasury gold. It was then that Nixon took America off the gold standard. The U.S. would no longer trade their treasury gold for dollars. Nixon and the legislature who approved this action, in effect, created this paper world that so many conservative thinkers are so hateful of today. The dollar would now “float” in the international market place. It would become a commodity as opposed to a security, I guess one could say. From that point forward all paper money would be valued against all of its competitors in an international marketplace.
The author then continues to present the international Dollar situation, describing alternatives and possibilities that could be on the international economic horizon.
The author uses his trained economic “conventional wisdom” to outline what he thinks must now be done … only giving ground to a lack of political will in doing what he suggests is economic reality and common sense. It is here that he falls back on Thomas Carlyle’s “dismal science” that he has learned to know and love in his college and university training.

His prognosis is to basically downsize the American standard of living, cut the middle class, cut wages, cut government, cut benefits, negatively spin unions and prepare for the flood of superior foreign global competition by advising Americans to put on nose plugs and resign themselves to gulping and swallowing large amounts of economic foreign overflow as they slowly go under until we reach a parody with China, India, Asia and the middle East.

In demanding this balanced budget on the backs of the middle and lower class and an overall downsizing of Middle American life, he dismisses military cuts and imperial aspirations in two very short statements. One statement philosophizing the inevitability of war and the necessity for defense spending and the other referencing a rather dubious figure equating military spending and GDP. In closing that door, he then closes the door on tax increases to the power of the Republicans leaving the only alternative of domestic and social cuts. This is monumental understatement and absurdity. I assume the author is attempting to be glib.

In all fairness the author does not state his prognosis in the exact terms as I have above but this is how I read it, nevertheless. He closes the book by stating that the fate of the Dollar is all in our hands and not the hands of the Chinese. He says this is the good news. But this was all prefaced by the necessity of solving our Dollar problems in accordance with his dismal notions of necessity.

I would like to counter some of his conventional wisdom with some of my radical Americanism.

The author keeps closing open doors and boxing himself and us in his dark economic cave of limited possibilities. The first door he closes is that of the global economy. He accepts it unquestionably. I disagree strongly.

There is no product that we can manufacture here cheaper and more efficiently than it can be manufactured in some foreign country. Therefore to compete on a global, totally free market basis is an outright loser for the U.S. Anyone that says otherwise, in my opinion, is simply pulling your leg. We can’t do it.

Our standard of living is too high. Our values are too high. And rightfully so. We should not throw our hands in the air and give up our values and our standards. We also cannot change the standards and values of our worldly competitors. We must fight, not conform.

We must nationalize our own standards and values and protect them with incentives and legislation as the situation demands. Japan, China, Germany and other countries have been doing this all along. We have got to start competing by designing a level playing field where we make the design and not our competitors and to the advantage of our workers and our national industries. And I emphasize National to the exclusion of international.

When you hear the president or anybody else boasting about the competitiveness and superiority of the American labor force they are blowing smoke up the American workers butt and it is as simple as that. Any worker can sit on a forklift or tractor or press the green or red button. Don’t kid yourselves. This “global” reality must be recognized.

The author then states that we have a negative trade balance that must be corrected. He explains arguments for devaluating the dollar and thus making our exports more attractive to foreign countries. He demonstrates how this is a delusion and does not work.

But there is more than one way to balance our negative trade balance and it has nothing to do devaluating or inflating anything. Our economy is our working people. The Dollar is the tale of the dog, not the dog. Manipulating the tale does not wiggle the dog. It’s the reverse that is required.

We could increase our exports … if we had anything to export. Rather than increasing our exports, we could decrease our imports. No we are not going to tighten our belts, stop buying and start doing without. We could decrease our imports by reclaiming production and manufacturing markets here at home. We all wear shoes. We all wear underwear. These manufacturing outlets and a thousand more can be reestablished here at home via incentives to national companies who have no overseas attachments. Don’t call General Electric, let them call us. The author dismisses this notion by stating that this type manufacturing America should be glad to be rid of. This is foolishness. Eighty-three percent of Americans agree that the U.S. must increase its lost manufacturing capacity.

We can also encourage new domestic manufacturing. But for any new manufacturer to invest here at home, he will have to be granted incentives and some security. China has manufacturers competing for the right to put a plant in their country. We have the largest market in the world. We should be doing the same. No one is going to invest millions here at home in electric cars or wind mill motors only to see their investment go down the drain in a year or two because of cheaper imports from China, Asia, India, or Europe.

The author points out that too much of our national debt is in the hands of foreign governments. We can thank Ronald Reagan who was the first to borrow and spend more than American’s could buy. I suggest we declare a war on foreign debt. Let’s get our government back in the War Bond business. Start a campaign offering bonds to American investors ONLY … common working people as well as big money people, a bond a week at work etc. Pay us a little worth while interest and then use our cash to gradually buy back some of this foreign debt. Most of us regular people will spend and invest our interest right here in our own backyard. It’s a win/win situation. Give Americans the chance to own America once again. We all may be surprised at the results.

I could go on and on but the point is simple. Think nationally. We can actively participate in the global market place but with reservations and to our advantage. Any company currently importing to the United State could be required to establish 20% of their totally manufacturing here in the U. S. or pay a premium. Make trade agreements fair to working Americans not international investors. And the truth is if our government can no longer be trusted to do this for us, Americans are going to have to figure out ways to do it for themselves.

2011-01-19T20:27:00.000-05:00

What War Taught Me about Peace

Robert Muller

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

I first read this book about 10 or 15 years ago. I have never been able to forget it. I have just finished reading it for a second time for this review.

This is a passionate book written by a passionate and committed man.

Mr. Muller was born and raised in Alsace – Lorraine, a very small but very unique and interesting section of the world. This area has been constantly torn by war and it citizens recruited by varying occupying nations and flags throughout history. Often times in this area, men have served on different sides in the same war – brother or countrymen against countrymen. On occasions some of its countrymen have served on different sides in the same war.

Mr. Muller tells of going into a farm house and seeing a picture of General DeGaulle hanging up on the wall. When he turned the picture over he found a picture of Adolf Hitler on the back side. This was often the plight of the people from Alsace – Lorraine.

Mr. Muller was assistant Secretary–General to a number of different leaders of the United Nations. I feel that he wrote this book as a father talking to a son.

It is a very strong and powerful book. Mr. Muller saw war, killing, torture, execution and death. He wrote this book in honor of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations and its commitment to bring peace to the world.

Some books I read might have one or two notable quotes. This book has one on nearly every page.

The chapter entitled The Supreme Test is haunting. In it the author describes people whom he witnessed going to their execution. He describes their behavior and his attempt to learn from them how to attain an honorable death for himself.

This book is very frank in its talk of war and inspiring it promotion of peace.
This is a man who devoted his life to the promotion of peace in the world.

This is also somewhat of a spiritual book. I usually turn away from such books. I am not very spiritual or religious but this man gives one of the best defenses from his spiritualism that I have ever read. It is very practical, human, pragmatic and earthly. His explanation of his spiritualism is one that even an atheist could embrace.

This is a very intelligent and experienced man with a message for all the people of the world.

I think this is a great book and I recommend it highly. Someone should pick this up and make it available once again. The man’s message is timeless.

2011-01-11T16:13:00.001-05:00

Democracy for the Few

By Michael Parenti

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

On page 295 of Democracy for the Few the author, Michael Parenti, political scientist and historian, states: “More than half a century ago the great sociologist Max Weber wrote: ‘The question is: How are freedom and democracy in the long run at all possible under the domination of highly developed capitalism.’ That question is still with us. And the answer suggested in this book is that freedom and democracy have at best a highly tenuous and marginal existence in capitalist society.

“In a democratic socialist social system the factories, mills, mines, offices, educational institutions, newspapers, hospitals, etc. will not be privately owned for private gain but will be controlled by and for their clients and workers. That is the goal towards which our efforts should be directed ... This commitment is, or should be, towards communal, collective and responsible decision making …”

Okeydokey! Now where have I read that before? I think it was in a book called Das Capital by some obscure writer whose name slips my mind at the moment.

But this does not bother me. The greatest champions for the rights of the working class in American history have come from the American Communist and Socialist Party. This fact has been credited by famous labor leaders from the AFL, CIO and documented by labor historians. It is an historical fact.

But regardless of the author’s conclusions, remedies and recommendations, I think this book is an invaluable read for anyone interested in the problems that face both capitalism and democracy.

This book was published in 1974 and the author’s analyses of the problems of our democratic system are as prevalent in today’s American democratic system as they were back in the 70s. Not much has changed. In fact, any changes that have taken place have only served to enhance Mr. Parenti’s analysis.

This same book could have the publication date 2010 and with a few name changes and an update here and there it would be on time and on the money. It is amazing to me how Mr. Parenti was able to achieve this. Few social critics have mastered this talent. Most political analyses become obsolete after months. Very few hang around for years and only the greatest for decades. The superstars are the ones we are still reading centuries later.

Democracy for the Few is packed with rather shocking facts and comparisons. For example on page 282 we have this interesting juxtaposition of random information: “… by the end of the 1960s upper income Americans were spending 2 billion a year on jewelry – more than was spent on housing for the poor – and no less than $3 billion on pleasure boating – half a billion more than what the fifty states spend on welfare. Over the years greater sums have been budgeted by the government for the development of the Navy’s submarine rescue vehicle than for occupational safety, public libraries and daycare centers combined.

“The total expenses of the entire legislative branch and the judiciary branch and all the regulatory commissions combined constitute a little more than one half of 1 percent of the Pentagon’s budget.”

This book is filled with such information.

As the title, Democracy for the Few, implies, we have a contradiction in terms with regards to our understanding of American democracy says Michael Parenti, college professor and educator. The gap between the democracy that most of us think we have and the democracy that is our national reality is Grand Canyon-like.

In light of the author’s detailed critical analysis can we seriously claim that we have a democracy – even a representative one, or a democratic republic for that matter?

The author points out every scam, every trick, and every deception. He explains why our democracy isn’t a democracy – with footnotes and easily understood facts and figures.

He tells us why our legislature isn’t working; how our executive and judicial branches have failed us; how our free press has turned news into propaganda; how our freedoms and constitutional rights have been undermined; how our legal system and our prisons have been diverted from the cause of true justice to protective institutions for the criminal wealthy; how our military has been twisted from defensive to aggressive – boarding on the fascist … Well, actually he doesn’t explain how the “system” has been diverted; he explains how it was designed that way from the very beginning. He shows us the Forefathers’ intentions and how our government of the rich, for the rich and by the rich has evolved according to plan.

Mr. Parenti does not think that “the system” can be tweaked. He sees our problems as endemic to our capitalist, corporate state. The old solution of switching corporate controlled Democrats for corporate controlled Republicans will not bring viable change nor will it institute true representative democracy.

This does seem to be the case, but Mr. Parenti, as with others who espouse his solution to these “endemic” problems, seems to be of the opinion that only the wealthy, elitist, current ruling class is capable of deceit and corruption. My question to Mr. Parenti would be, Are these problems endemic to capitalism and its ruling class or endemic to human nature. If capitalists, rich and poor alike, could be injected with a strong dose of the good old, Christian Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – could this not be a more apt and suitable solution? I would even support laws being enacted along the Golden Rule line of thinking. The Golden Rule solution may be naïve but I find it more acceptable than bombs, bullets and a blood stained revolution in the streets of the U.S.A. Revolutions don’t seem to be working all that well either. Look at what ours has wrought, Mr. Parenti – reed your own book!

Republicans and Democrats alike should read this book. I doubt that either group will benefit from it.

This book by itself could easily serve as the text for a two semester college graduate course in American Democratic Government.

Buy it. Read it and weep.