John Locke (1632-1704 A. D.)

Philosopher

By Richard E. Noble

From a psychological point of view, John Locke appears to be fairly normal, and for a philosopher this seems to be quite an accomplishment. He didn't hate either Mom or Dad. He wasn't overcoming any childhood abuse. He never married, but had romances with woman. He lived through the period of the English civil war in 1688. His father was a Puritan and supported Cromwell. When the crown was reestablished in England he and his benefactor, the lord of Shaftsbury formally the Lord Ashley, and off-and-on again chancellor of England and resident prisoner in the tower of London, found prudent refuge in liberal, tolerant Holland.
Locke is considered the philosophical father of Liberalism. His political ideas founded the basis of our government.
Locke was heavy on the idea of tolerance and wrote notable papers supporting the idea, but in real life he had several prejudices of his own. He thought that teaching Poetry to boys was folly and should be discouraged. But yet in his fifties, falling in love with an attractive and much younger woman, a little sweetie by the name of Damaris Cudworth, he found it necessary to write a few little foolish love poems himself. Miss Cudworth finally married someone else, but she and her husband welcomed John to the security of their household in his old age, where he became a grandfatherly figure to the children of her and all of his old friends.
He also thought that there were two groups to whom tolerance should not be shown; Roman Catholics because they owned allegiance to a foreign power, the Pope and Atheists to whom, supposedly, no authority was justified. But in truth, don't all religions owe allegiance to a Foreign Power?
He is most noted for challenging the divine right of Kings. A theory, espoused at the time by a guy named Filmer and later by Edmond Burke who was Tom Paine's adversary in the same argument a century later. Both men traced the authority of governments over people, from God, to Adam, to the Kings. The Egyptians, the Mexicans, the Peruvians and the Japanese held pretty much the same philosophy. And today I would say that most religions hold a similar view at least with regards to faith and morals. Authority begins with God, is then extended to some human benefactor, a Savior, or Prophet (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, John Smith etc.) and then to the popes, or rabbis, or bishops, or ministers of whatever modern day philosophy they now profess.
John Locke and Tom Paine said that the power of governments originated within the independence and freedom of the individual, who then through some sort of unwritten contract or agreement temporarily transferred this authority to a leader or government. Rousseau was of the similar opinion.
The trouble with both of these ideas is similar. In the first case no one has yet been able to get God to verify their particular claims in Person, and in the second case no one seems to be able to find any such signed contract to which supposedly everyone has agreed. This whole confusion has produced quite a dilemma and controversy, one that continues to this very day.
It is agreed, John Locke was a nice guy, but very inconsistent.

You Ain't from Around Here

The Eastpointer

“You Ain’t from Around Here, Are Ya?”

By Richard E. Noble
I suppose that there are a few out there who might incorrectly assume that because a person has lived in the town of Eastpoint for thirty years or so, he could rightfully call himself an “Eastpointer”. I am not so naive. I would never, even in my wildest dream tell anyone that I was an Eastpointer. I could no more be an Eastpointer than if captured by a Seminole as a child and held on a reservation for thirty years would I be an Indian.
But when introducing myself to people from far off and distant places like “Tallahassee” for example, I can refer to myself as an “Eastpointer” because what the heck would they know, anyway. They probably wouldn’t know an Oysterman from a Fisherman, a Crabber from a Picker, a Shucker from a Culler or a Dealer from a Deck Hand.
Often here in this neighborhood people refer to me as a “Yankee” - sometimes even as a “damn Yankee.”
I was informed the very first night that I arrived here in Eastpoint of the difference between the two definitions.
The wife and I were at the old Charlie’s Bar when a rather large fellow with a mud stained T-shirt, a baseball cap and a pair of ragged looking stained white rubber boots came up to the bar next to where we were sitting. He looked me up and down rather curiously, and then said, “You ain’t from around here, are ya?”
My first thought was how did this guy come to the conclusion that I “wasn’t from around here”? I mean it wasn’t like I was Chinese or something. I wasn’t dressed in a Tuxedo or sporting a Gene Autry cowboy shirt and ten gallon, Wild West hat. I mean before landing here in Eastpoint, I had been from one corner of this country to another. My wife and I had traveled from Oregon and Washington State to Fort Lauderdale and Key West, Florida, from Baja and San Diego, California to Portland, Maine and Boston, Mass, from the upper peninsula of Michigan to Port Isabel, Texas. Like the song said “We had been everywhere man.” And in traveling to all these different places no one ever looked at us and said “You ain’t from around here, are ya?” That was wierd.
“No I ain’t,” I said.
“I didn’t think so. Where are you from anyway?”
“Well, before we arrived here we were working in Orlando.”
“You ain’t from Orlando.”
“You mean where was I born and raised?”
“Yeah, that’s what I mean.”
“Well, originally I’m from New England - Massachusetts in particular.”
“That is just what I thought! You’re a Yankee.”
Now I thought that was rather peculiar. All the many years that I had lived in New England nobody had ever called me a Yankee. I was raised in a town up there that was called the “Immigrant City”. We had somewhere around 40 to 60 different nationalities who had settled there over the generations. I had been called a “Polack” and I had been called a “Harp” and I had sometimes been called a “Limey” depending on which of my immediate ancestors my accuser was familiar with. But no one had ever called me a Yankee.
“What the heck is a Yankee anyway?” I asked.
“Well there’s two kinds,” he said. “Let me ask you a question. Are you just passing through or are you lookin’ to buy a place and settle here?”
“At the moment we ain’t planning on settling anywhere,” I said. “We plan on staying any place that we can find work.”
“Well, we got plenty of that around here. But if you ain’t thinking of settling here and you’re just planning on passing through that would make you just a plan old Yankee.”
“And if I was planning on settling in?”
“Well, in that case you would be one of them damn Yankees.”
Everybody around the bar laughed. When the big gentleman walked away the bartender said “Don’t mind him. He don’t mean nothin’ by it. He kian’t help himself … he’s an Eastpointer.”
At this point I still don’t know if being known as an Eastpointer is a good thing or a bad thing. When my wife and I began our careers as “oyster people” we were working for this fellow who owned a little campground down by the water’s edge. We were standing on the “hill” one morning warming our hands over a small fire when I asked the old “salt” if he was originally from Eastpoint. He immediately began laughing and slapping his thighs and elbowing everyone standing around him. “He thinks I’m an Eastpointer,” the man said laughing and sputtering. “Can you believe that?”
Well after the laughing and sputtering died down, I followed up and said, “Well where are you from anyway?” I was sure that he was going to tell me that he was from Georgia or Alabama, or Louisiana or some place like that, but instead he proclaimed, “Why I’m from Carrabelle originally. I don’t have no relation to none of these folks over this a way.”
So there you go.
My conclusion was that if Carrabelle was a separate entity to this “Eastpointer” then maybe being a Yankee wasn’t all that distant either.

Hobo-ing America and A Summer with Charlie are books written by Richard E. Noble, a Freelance Writer who has lived in Eastpoint for thirty years. Both books are now available on Amazon.com. You can stock and sell his books at your business by e-mailing richardedwardnoble@gtcom.net

Nothing Last Forever

The Eastpointer

Nothing Lasts Forever

By Richard E. Noble
I remember when I used to buy things thinking that they would last forever. It seems so silly today when I think of it. Where did I ever get such an idea? I remember in my not so distant past actually becoming annoyed if a screwdriver broke. Of course, screwdrivers are guaranteed today. You can buy a screwdriver and when you twist off the end of it trying to rotate a screw that is made out of stronger, harder metal than the screwdriver, you can bring the screwdriver back and they will give you another one that will do the very same thing. That's called a lifetime guarantee - you can spend your lifetime traveling back and forth to the hardware department at some department store. Actually our money has the same guarantee. If you don't think that it is worth anything you can bring it back to the bank and they will exchange it for more of the same.
I think I got this notion by being born too soon. We had the same refrigerator in my house from the beginning of my memories until I left home as an adult. My mother would save up the money to buy something once and then took care of it and it was understood to last forever. I had the same radio, the same bed, the same mattress, the same comforter, the same everything in my bedroom all my life at home.
Automobiles were like that too. Actually when Henry Ford manufactured his first Model T, it was advertised as so simple that even a "woman" could fix it. If the person who bought it couldn't fix it, no one in those days would have bought one. Today nobody can fix an automobile. If your automobile breaks even the dealership where you bought it probably can't fix it. And nobody buys a car for "keeps." Everything on today's automobile is designed to last as long as the warranty. In Cuba they are still driving the cars that were manufactured when I was growing up. They can be fixed and repaired forever.
Now I actually buy things just because it is time to get a new one. My old one still works but the company no longer makes parts for it and even if it did, there is no one who can remember how those parts used to fit together.
I buy clothes because that's what they have for sale, not because that is what I want. In my dressing career I've looked like Elvis, the Beach Boys, a guest on Hee Haw, a Wigger, and an off duty marine.
Sometimes I buy a new thing simply because they no longer sell supplies for my old thing.
Today I don't even expect that anything I buy will last. There are many things I buy to use just once and throw them away. I spend my disposable income buying disposable things. If anything I buy lasts longer than the warranty I feel I won.
I buy tape that doesn't stick to anything and glue that only sticks to my fingers and eyelids. I buy scissors that can't cut paper. I buy hammers that shatter pounding a nail. I buy light bulbs that fizzle out as I screw them in. I buy broken things that come in packaging that can't be opened with a blow torch. I buy knives that can cut through a tin can but won't slice a loaf of French bread. I buy T-shirts marked XX large that won't fit over my head and if they do get over my head they don't hang low enough to cover my belly button. I buy socks that form a hole in them as I put them on my feet for the first time. I buy hamburger and chicken livers that go bad while waiting for the frying pan to heat up. I buy chickens, ham and beef that lose weight just sitting on the counter. I buy vegetables that you can't even wash the salmonella from. I buy cans of tuna fish packed in water, that contain more water than tuna fish. I order things on the Internet that I know can't work. I guess that I have become so accustomed to being cheated that I have a longing for the feeling.
We don't even discuss "workmanship" anymore. The only place that I hear workmanship even being mentioned is on the Antique Road Show and This Old House. My wife and I were watching a show on woodworking. My wife's grandfather was a carpenter and a house builder. "Do you think that your grandfather could have done that?" I asked.
"Yes," she replied, "but he would have done it with a hand saw and a rasp. In his day workmanship wasn’t covering up sloppiness in an attempt to make it look professional. My grandfather used to do everyday of his life what the carpenter of today doesn’t even believe is possible."
People go to college and don't specialize in anything. If they do, by the time they graduate their chosen specialty could very well be obsolete. Jobs are disappearing faster than you can learn how to do them. What you want to study today in college is flexibility and elasticity. You have to be flexible enough to do anything that is asked of you and then you've got to be able to stretch it out long enough to pay your rent or next mortgage payment.

Hobo-ing America and A Summer with Charlie are books written by Richard E. Noble, a Freelance Writer who has lived in Eastpoint for thirty years. Both books are now available on Amazon.com. You can stock and sell his books by e-mailing richardedwardnoble@gtcom.net

Labor and the Global Economy

Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

This TV documentary began in India or Bangladesh or some such place. I remember very little of the details but for this short, sad story, the details are not the important thing. You’ll get the point without them. But let me relate the report as best I remember, anyway.
A reporter was taking the viewing audience through a modern day sweatshop in some third world country. The story focused on this one young lady. She was very beautiful with a sweetness in her eyes and expression that couldn’t help but to attract the camera and the viewers. She was dressed in the colorful wardrobe of her ethnic community. She made dresses. We first see her running cloth through her sewing machine in a very businesslike fashion. It is clear that she knows what she is doing and has been doing this job for some time.
She is working in a room with hundreds of other women - all participating in the same craft. The scene looks like something out of America’s 1860s. We see her working and then we walk home with her.
Where she lives, looks like a cut from “The Gangs of New York” movie - the Four Corners section. Her apartment is on the third or fourth floor of a rickety wooden tenement structure. As the camera pans the building one wonders what is holding this structure together.
We follow this pretty little thing in her colorful Indian gown as she walks across perilous looking wooden planks and pathways. We finally arrive at a room. This room is filled with people. It looks like Grand Central Station. She walks in and about and around people until she comes to a curtain or blanket that is draped over a cord in a far off corner. She pulls back the artificial drape and we meet her family. I don’t remember the whole family but there are a number of generations living in the 20x20 square behind this blanket. There are mats strewn about where everyone sleeps. I don’t remember what they ate, how they cooked or where the bathrooms were - if there were any. The street leading up to the apartment looked like a giant cesspool anyway. The whole thing was so shocking it was hard to keep focused, but I resisted changing the channel.
The reporter and his crew then explained this young lady’s situation.
She works nine hundred hours a week and makes twelve cents a month and you should be able to make up the rest for yourself. But the reporter now tells us that we are going to go on a journey through the social structure to find out who is responsible for all of this.
First we go and interview the man who owns the sweatshop. For some reason this gentleman does not appear to be from the same culture. He is not an Anglo but an Asian. He is a businessman. He is very businesslike but not totally without compassion - if you can believe what he say.
We do not follow him to his home. He says that he is paying his workers as much as he can afford without going under himself. He sounds like all bosses everywhere. I was one for a time myself.
So I listen to this Chinese guy tell this American reporter why he can’t pay this Indian lady enough money to buy single ply toilet tissue, and I start thinking.
The reporter asks the Chinese guy why he can’t afford to pay this little lady enough money to live on. He says that it is because of the department store chain that buys his stuff. They tell him what they will pay him for the dresses. “If you will buy these dresses for more money than these department stores are offering, I will buy them from you and give the extra money to the women workers,” he claims. He sounds very sincere. It is hard for a decent person to believe that he isn’t telling the truth.
Next we go to the head of economic development of this whole country. Our American reporter is now at the palace interviewing the King or the General in Charge, or the El Presidente or whatever.
This man is extremely well spoken. He has a very kind and sympathetic look on his face. He bows and bends his head while holding his hands in prayer-like posture. “What am I to do?” he says. “I am but a poor simple King. This woman you tell me about, she is living in an apartment. She has a roof over her head. She has food to eat. She has some money. There are millions of others in this country who have none of these things. We are glad that any business comes here and pays our people anything. We are not in a position to bargain.”
The King seems sincere. We do not interview any concubines and next we are on an airplane heading for New York or Nebraska, Berlin or London or someplace. We are now in the office on the 116th floor of the Ball Mart Department Store chain. “Sir, our policy here at Ball Mart is to provide our customers with the best possible product at the cheapest possible price. We do not operate any sweatshops anywhere in the world. We buy all of our products from independent businessmen. We do not tell them how
to run their enterprises. We believe in free competition, individualism and entrepreneurship. These are the virtues that have made America great. These are the virtues that have made the United States of America the idol of the whole free world. What would you like us to do?” We leave this man’s office with a free American flag and everyone singing the Star Spangled Banner.
We go back to the Four Corners of Bangladesh and pick up our little Indian sweetheart. We put her on the plane with us and fly her to the Ball Mart Department Store in Uptown Downtown America. She is very thrilled. She looks rather out of place as she walks through the Ball Mart Parking lot in her native Indian attire.
Once inside the store we take her over to the dress department. She excitedly looks through the racks of clothes and finds a dress that she herself made for three cents. She recognizes it. She shows it to the reporters. She has a big smile on her face. She is quite thrilled and proud to see a product that came from her own hands selling inside this fantastic department store. Everything that she has seen over here in this country is beyond her wildest dreams. She asks the reporters how much her dress is selling for. They tell her the price. Her eyes open wide and her tiny well-worked fingers rush up to cover her open mouth. She is in shock. The price of one of her dresses is equivalent to one whole year of her salary. She is bordering on tears. She tells the reporters that if she could get only five cents more for each of her dresses, she could live a decent life back in her home country.
There is a lady shopping at the store. She is going through the racks of dresses. The reporters bring the little Indian lady over to the shopper and introduce them to one another. They tell the American shopper that this lady made the dress that she is looking at. The American lady tells the Indian lady that she likes her dress and is probably going to buy it. They quickly tell the American shopping lady about this poor Indian lady’s sad life. They explain how little money she makes and how she lives in the most unhealthy and horrid conditions. They explain that this poor woman says that if she could receive one nickel per dress her whole life would be changed for the better. They ask the American shopping lady if she would be willing to pay an extra nickel for that dress so that this Indian lady could live a better life.
Without hesitation the American lady says no. She says that she is working two jobs herself and that she is also trying to raise three children - without a husband. She tells the Indian lady that she must fight her own battles just as everyone else in this world must do. Then she walks away.
The reporters translate what the American lady had to say. The dark black eyes of the Indian Lady well up with tears as she listens. The tears flow readily down her cheeks as she stands there without moving. She makes no attempt to wipe her cheeks or turn her face away. She stares straight ahead, silent, as the tears flow freely down the front of her face.

Tom Paine

Tom Paine (1737-1809)

Historical Essay

By Richard E. Noble

Whatever happened to Tom Paine? Where are the statues and monuments to Tom Paine? Where is his "tomb"? Never mind his tomb, where are his bones? His bones pilfered and scattered all over the world, sold for profit by grave robbers.
Tom Paine, possibly THE most dedicated patriot of the American Revolution. Without Tom Paine, George Washington, whose bought and paid for supplies for the battle at Valley Forge had already been sold to the British in a double cross by an unscrupulous American businessman would have been swinging from a cherry tree. At General George's begging Tom scribbled off a little piece of work that inspired his class. His "class" being those without the shoes, without the property, without the money, and after the revolution, without the vote and without their promised back pay, who fought in the streets and under the bridges and won the American Revolution for all of those little rich boys that we read about in our history books. This particular scribbling began, "These are the times that try men's souls..." Even George, himself, admitted that without this little piece of writing it may have been all over for the good guys.
Tom Paine, a grocery store clerk, and then a corset maker with no formal education was the man who inspired the soldiers of the American Revolution. They nick-named him, Common Sense, from the title of one of his other works. A work in which he challenged the authority of the Kings of the World, and their smartest and brightest defenders.
Tom Paine not only wrote the inspirational material that sparked the Revolution, but unlike his little rich buddies who, in the end all sold him out, including Old George who left him in the Bastille in France to rot, never made a penny from any of his writings. He gave any profits to the Revolutionary Treasury.
Tom Paine, the man who escaped from England by the skin of his teeth, the King's number one most wanted, the man who wrote his last great work, "The Age of Reason" while sitting in the Bastille in revolutionary France awaiting his turn at the guillotine ... So whatever happen to old Tom, and his Tom-foolery?
If you don't know but would like to know, take a trip to your local library and find out. The answer you may find quite shocking, but really, it's not so surprising.

John Tyler

John Tyler

President from 1840 to 1844

By Richard E. Noble

Serves them right! Ha ha! John Tyler is just what those Whigs deserved. They spent all their bucks on bribes, lies, phony advertising, political propaganda, and backroom skullduggery in order to get their old puppet William Henry Harrison elected, and before he even gets to serve one day he drops dead. In came John Tyler, a man not of their sympathies, not of their philosophy, and in basic disagreement with everything that they stood for. They had selected him as vice president to balance the ticket, never thinking for a second that he would ever become president. He vetoed everything they brought up and within five months of his first year in office his whole Whig cabinet, led by Henry Clay, resigns. Only Daniel Webster chooses to remain by the new president's side. But even old Daniel decides to resign before the term is over.
John Tyler is not a federalist or a nationalist. He supports state's rights. Well, he liked state's rights for most states, Rhode Island not included. Old John (I guess I shouldn't call him old. He was the youngest president to that date) hated Andrew Jackson for stating that he would send the federal troops into the states to settle the nullification controversy, but then threatened the same tactic when Rhode Island had a problem with its franchise requirements.
He presented the first presidential crisis. Should a vice president be allowed to step in when the elected president didn't even serve one day? Should we have another election? Should somebody else be appointed? Was this fair? The Whigs wanted to get rid of him but the Constitution was in their way. It pretty much said what should happen if a president dies. It didn't mention if he died after one day or three hundred days. So Tyler was it, and the Whigs and everybody else would just have to live with him.
He wanted to annex Texas into the Union, and thought that the slavery issue would go away if everybody just ignored it. I wonder? Do you think that it would have? Would there ever have come a time that slavery would have just dissipated because it wasn't economical or practical, or desirable, or moral? It's strange but slavery has had its longest life in Africa - among the all black nations.
He did manage to get Texas annexed by the end of his term, but nobody was willing to ignore slavery for long.
If John had lived long enough, he would have spent his last years in a federal penitentiary or in disgrace, or wherever it was that those who were elected to the Confederate Legislature ended up, but instead, he died in 1862.
John was, to say the least, prolific. He had seven children by his first wife before she finally died of a stroke, and then seven more by his second wife.
His second father-in-law was killed one day while they were all enjoying a cruse down the Potomac on the frigate, the Princeton. A new, super-large, bow-canon was being demonstrated. They tried to fire it and it exploded. Tyler just missed getting blown up himself. Then he almost fell off the gang plank while rescuing his new bride, and then at the mass funeral his horse and carriage ran away. The new president almost got killed three times in one week.

Bouncer Genius and God

Genius and God

Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

The other night on TV they found the man with the highest I.Q. in America. He was working as a bouncer in a night club, and his main intellectual interest in life was to prove the existence of God, mathematically. He said that the existence of God has yet to have been established by any human thinker to date, and that he had taken up the challenge, and that it was now his life's goal.
I am not one of the greatest thinkers to have ever lived, but I have also been concerned with this problem for as far back as I can remember in my life, and I am going to be so bold as to predict the results of this man's mathematical inquiry even though I have almost no mathematical skills whatsoever.
First of all, as it stands today the world believes in basically two Gods. Today there is the God of religion, and the God of science.
The God of religion is a sociological, psychological, human entity. This God is a composite of reason, compassion, power, love, justice, conscience, intellect, and all of the qualities admired by humankind extended or expanded to infinity. This God of religion will never be discovered mathematically. The reason being, is that compassion, truth, justice and beauty etc. are qualities that can not be reduced to a formula of A square plus B square - all of the mathematical calculations in the world will not prove the Bible, the Koran or the Upanishads to be the word of God, or Jesus to be the Son of God, or Mohammed to be the prophet of God. And as Saint Augustine and others after him have pointed out, God is beyond the capacity of human reason and intellect and a matter for faith.
On this point the true believer and the atheist are as two adjacent but at the same time, extreme points on a circle. From one point of view they are as far apart on the circle as two points can be, yet from another point of view, almost one and the same. The only difference between the philosophical atheist and the philosophical true believer is that the atheist says that nothing is beyond the capacity of human reason and intellect. What is necessary at the point where human reason seems to fail is more knowledge, not faith or belief, or revelation.
Once a definition is placed on God and God is given any attributes, the concept of God becomes paradoxical and illogical. If you give a secular or atheistic philosopher a definition of your God, he can prove by whatever definition that you provide that your concept of God is unreasonable, illogical, or paradoxical - and therefore untrue. The only requirement for true being - that it conforms to reason and logic. If you throw out the requirement of reasonableness or logic then, of course, any and all definitions of God are equal and acceptable.
The God of science is another God entirely. This God can be reduced to the notion of a Force or Power operating to keep the Universe in motion and afloat in the heavens. This God is not connected with sociological criteria such as morality or justice. He is simply an unexplainable, yet to be discovered or determined or defined force, power or physical principle - a physical principle governing, or at the root of, all of the so far discovered principles behind the motion and matter of the Universe.
Mathematics will not discover this God either - because mathematics is not a science of discovery but explanation. Like a computer you can only get out of it what you put into it. You can not discover new facts from mathematics, you can only suppose them. And they are supposed by hypothesis which is guessing. So my prediction is that our bouncer genius will come to the mathematical conclusion that our Universe is self perpetuating, or as yet unexplainable. He will not discover that A square + B square - the square root of 0 = God.
Considering that all definitions of God can be proved to be logically impossible, to suggest that life is fantastically improbable and that therefore there must be a God is to replace the highly improbable with the totally impossible.

The Eastpointer

What about a Storm?

By Richard E. Noble

As most of us who were around in the "good old days" know, the good old days weren't really all that "good." I was talking with some folks the other evening who had never been seafood workers. They wanted to know what we used to do with our valuable oyster boats when a storm was threatening off shore.
Pictures began to pop into my mind, but the first thing I remembered was that our old oyster boats were not all that valuable. We rented our first oyster boat for a-bag-a-day. We called the boat, bail-a-little sail-a-little. The boat leaked so badly that I had to take a break from tonging every half hour or so, walk to the back of the boat and start bailing it out. Our bail bucket used to be an old Clorox bottle or plastic milk jug with the cap screwed back on and the bottom cut out.
Many oystermen that I knew didn't own an oyster boat or a motor. They rented their boat and motor from the dealer who they worked for - one bag of oysters for the boat and one bag for the motor. Some other oystermen shared one rented boat. Some dealers had a small fleet of old boats and motors that they rented. At one point in our career, my wife and I owned three oyster boats that we rented out to other aspiring self-employed businessmen in the "trade." It was somewhat of a losing proposition. Most of the time, the fellow who rented a boat would get behind on his rent. He would then unload his oysters down on Cat Point or elsewhere and when he came back to tie out the boat, he would have no money to pay.
But the boats were cheap. I think we bought our old boats for between $150 and $250. For most of our career we never had a trailer for any of our oyster boats - and most other folks we knew didn't either.
After many storms we simply joined the large crowd of oystermen who were digging their boats out of the sand along the shore line. At that time there were at least 1500 registered oysterman. The channel in Eastpoint could have five to six hundred boats crammed in that tiny stretch of beach. If you didn't get your motor off your boat in time, you would have to take it apart, get all the salty water out of the carburetor and squirt lots of oil into the cylinder heads, get some new spark plugs and you were back in business again within the week.
If it started blowing unexpectedly during the night, I would crawl out of bed, hop in the truck and head down to the shore.
There was a time when there was no breakwater in Eastpoint and every stormy night the shore along highway 98 would be lined with pickup trucks. They would shine their headlights on their boat to make sure another boat hadn't “drug” anchor and was now rubbing up against theirs. If that eventuality did happen, the owner of the endangered boat would have to wade or swim out to his boat, crank it up, move it and re-set his anchors. If it was raining, which was usually the case, and you couldn't afford a battery and an automatic bilge pump, you would have to wade out to your boat and bail it out periodically. Sometime it would get too windy and too rough and all us oystermen would just sit there and count the boats as they went under.
Several times in my own career, I remember wading out to my boat with the wind blowing and the waves crashing, and unscrewing my motor from the stern and carrying my 40 horse Johnson to shore on my shoulder. The boat might go under but at least I would have my motor.
A stormy night in Eastpoint meant glowing headlight beams filled with the sparkle of raindrops, cigarettes flickering behind each steering wheel, and a host of invisible worried, sleepy faces set and determined to face Mother Nature and whatever she had in mind for their future.
When a big storm was announced to be on its way, pickup trucks would be along every bank dragging oyster boats up on the hill as far as they could get them. The trunk of every old car would have the foot of an outboard dangling. Others would be out in the woods hacking down small cypress trees. The cypress trees would be sunk into the mud and used as mooring posts for your old boat if you wanted to take your chances that it wouldn't blow as bad as they said it would.
Digging out your boat after a big storm was a rather strange experience. I remember my wife and I were standing on the beach looking at our old boat that had washed up 300 yards from where we had it moored. Old Pappy Millender came up beside us. He looked at our faces. We hadn't said a word.
"Yeah but," he said. "Sure it looks bad now but you'll have it up and running before the week is out and you won't even remember today. What you want to think about today is the beautiful sun peeking up on the horizon on a foggy morning as you're heading out to work, the cool breeze blowing in your face, the clunking of them oysters being tossed into a metal bagging can. What you will remember tomorrow, is all the good times and all the fun that you have had making your living right out there on this beautiful bay with nobody telling you what to do, or how fast you have to move, or when you have to leave, or how hard you have to work. Take my word - you'll forget about today and you will remember the good times and all those good days."
And so it was!

Hobo-ing America and A Summer with Charlie are books written by Richard E. Noble, a freelance writer who has lived in Franklin County for over thirty years. Both books are now available on Amazon.com. If you would like to stock my books in your store or business, contact me at 670-8076 or e-mail me at richardedwardnoble@gtcom.net

Sherman, Clayton, Norris-LaGuardia

Striking America

By Richard E. Noble

The notion that business had gotten too big for it britches was no longer a notion. Everyone knew about the power of the trusts and the super-wealthy. The Pujo Committee of 1913 had established the links of consolidation in business and finance in the U.S. The finances of the entire nation were proven to have been consolidated into the hands of a few. No one liked the idea. Every president from Grover Cleveland on, had jawboned about the horrible state of affairs. Teddy Roosevelt was even labeled as "the Trust Buster". But as early as 1888, committees in the Benjamin Harrison administration were investigating monopolies. In 1890, the Sherman Anti-trust Act was passed in response to public opinion. The Act prohibited conspiracies in restraint of trade among the several states. America had been a country based on competition. Competition was considered good. The elimination of competition via monopolies, trust, and other such evolutions was bad. To gain wealth was good. But to become so wealthy and so powerful that all competition could be stifled was bad, but, what to do, what to do? The Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 was the government's first attempt to do something.
The Sherman Act sat around rather idle and difficult until 1894 when, ironically enough, it was put to use against workers and not business monopolies or trusts. It was in the Pullman strike that the Sherman Act was brought into play. On the few occasions where it had been brought against business, it was dismissed or interpreted to the advantage of business trusts and monopolies. It was only when it faced labor unions that it developed a legal significance.
In the Pullman strike, the strikers and their sympathetic associates who cooperated against Mr. Pullman in other states were declared to be a labor monopoly. Their actions in refusing to handle Pullman cars at different railroad stations were declared to be in restraint of trade. An injunction was ordered and the Pullman strike was deemed illegal. Eugene Debs, union leader, refused to comply with the injunction. He was arrested and tried for contempt of court. He was convicted.
In the Danbury Hatter's case of 1908 the financial penalty of the Act was imposed. The Union involved was ordered to pay triple the claimed damages. Used in this manner, the Sherman Anti-trust Act could break the back of any union declared to be in violation.
In retrospect, it becomes rather apparent that the Sherman Anti-trust Act was passed purely as a placebo to placate public outrage. The government was controlled and operated by big business, as was everything else. The only thing that remains in question, is whether or not the legislature passed the Act, worded so obscurely, with the intention of using it in the future as an anti-labor initiative. If the act was passed sincerely by the legislature, then we clearly become aware of the peril of a judicial system where individual judges have the option not to read the intent of the law but the letter of the law, or to interpret law as they see fit. The only option to this behavior in a democratic society seemed to be that laws would have to be written in the future with a good deal more attention paid to specifics and details.
In 1914, Congress, again supported by strong public opinion, went back to the drawing board. An attempt was made to refine the Sherman Act and exempt labor unions from its anti-trust provisions. The Clayton Act was passed. Labor hailed the Clayton act as the Magna Carta of labor-management relations. This was not quite the case. In fact, conservative or anti-labor judges throughout the country saw the Clayton Act as basically synonymous with the Sherman Act.
So, in the beginning, laborers were not allowed to join together for any other than fraternal purposes. They could not "conspire" to better their working conditions, increase their wages, or damage or interrupt their employer's business. As time progressed laborers were able to combine and to petition their bosses peacefully. But if their peaceful petitions were rejected by their bosses, their only recourse was to quit and seek new employment.
Of course, we have no cases where bosses were restricted from joining together for their mutual business benefit. We have no cases where bosses are brought to trial for restricting the opportunities or wages of laborers. We have no cases where any management group is accused of manipulating prices or conspiring to raise prices. Nor do we find any cases of bosses working together against the rights of their workers. Up until this point we have what seems to be very much a one way street. All men are created equal. But, of course, bosses are more equal. The question still remained as to what were the rights of labor? What could laborers do in response to perceived injustice on the part of their bosses? Picketing was not permitted; boycotts were not permitted; sympathy strikes were not permitted; sit-downs were not permitted; work stoppage and slowdowns were not permitted; interfering with another man's opportunity to go to work in a striker's position was not permitted and the courts were obviously prejudiced towards management.
Workers could quit or take action and go to jail. Workers had, of course, taken action, and they were beaten, clubbed, put in jail or machine gunned in the streets. But by 1932, with the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt the tide began to turn ever so slightly.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act was called the anti-injunction act. The injunction had become a legal tool of management that was used to the point of abuse. An injunction could be issued without the consent of both disputants. An injunction could be issued simply on the word of management. A judge could issue a stop strike order without even hearing the side of the strikers. If the strikers then refused to comply, troops could be called in, and as we have seen, usually were. With the Norris-LaGuardia act the legislature got specific. Half the bill imposed restrictions on the manner in which the federal courts might grant injunctions. The remaining half of the bill dealt with the subject matter of an injunction.
The bill reviewed old injustices and attempted to correct them. It seemed to be an attempt to put unions on an equal footing with corporations. Picketing seemed to be legal under the statute. Unions could restrain trade, just as corporations could, as long as they acted "reasonably," - no fraud or violence was permitted. Violence was always a problem. Violence could be initiated by both sides and who would know or be capable of determining the true aggressor.
With the election of Roosevelt, the passing of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and the appointment of new pro-labor judges, labor found a new freedom, and they took advantage of it. The moral of the story seems to be that judges may be even more important than the law or the legislatures.
From 1931 to 1939 things went pretty much in labor's direction. But, by 1939, pubic opinion was swinging back once again. Labor organizing tactics, sympathetic support, sit-down strikes, property damage and violence against industry and non-union workers took its toll on public opinion. States began to reconsider Norris-LaGuardia and make qualifying legislation of their own. By 1941, the unions had been calmed down, but yet were on a freer footing than they had ever been in history. The New Deal leaned towards more balanced labor-management relations. There was even talk of a man's "right to work"; a man's natural right to sustenance; a man should have a right to sustain his life even in a world owned entirely by other people, shouldn't he?
Of course, from management's point of view, the government had caved. Labor had always had all the rights that they deserved. There was no Constitutional right to a "job." There was no natural right to "employment." There was no such thing as an American guarantee of "freedom from want," or "freedom from fear" for that matter. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion had their obvious limitations also.
Freedom of property was the fundamental principle of this society. Freedom to accumulate wealth, uninhibited by government is another right that the forefathers should have been more specific about. Wealth and property, these were the true "unalienable" rights of man. Without these two "rights" there was no such thing as freedom. Where property rights are not protected and sustained, human rights are without consequence.


"Labor Problems in American History", by Carroll R. Daugherty; "American Economic History", sixth edition, by Harold Underwood Faulkner.

Mein Kampf

Chapter 13 Part 3

By Richard E. Noble

"...The same boy who is nauseated by the drivel of the ideal pacifist is ready to throw away his young life for the ideal of his nationality..."
That a young boy will throw away his life for almost anything seems to be a given. Young boys are fighting in our streets today, often to their death, for nothing more than a particular corner on a city street. Young boys, old men, and women and girls not excluded, always seem to be willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of others for any number of reasons, nationality being one reason among many. In our individual nations we try to teach a respect for life to all of the population. We establish laws to punish those who do not act accordingly. But then on an international basis we try and teach to the same child and population the righteousness, and bravery of killing others. At one time we here in the U.S. tried to limit this killing to the qualification of self-defense, but as to what now determines our self-defense has expanded to include our military presence all over the world. Protecting economic and political notions is now even included under the category of our self-defense. Dying for some principal or cause seems to be all too prevalent an excuse to kill oneself and/or others, throughout all of human history.
"... The Jew forms the strongest contrast to the Aryan. Hardly in any people of the world is the instinct of self-preservation more strongly developed than in the so called 'chosen people.' The fact of the existence of this race alone may be looked upon as the best proof of this. Where is the people that in the past two thousand years has been exposed to so small changes than this one - and yet has always come forth the same from the most colossal catastrophes of mankind? ..."
Yes, and how does this attribute for the Jews become a point of derision and for the German and Aryan a point of pride?
"... In the Jewish people, the will to sacrifice oneself does not go beyond the bare instinct of self-preservation of the individual ... The Jew remains united only if forced by common danger or attracted by a common booty. If the Jews were alone in this world, they would suffocate as much in dirt and filth, as they would carry on a detestable struggle to cheat and to ruin each other, although the complete lack of the will to sacrifice, expressed in their cowardice, would also in this instance make the fight a comedy ... The Jew is led by nothing but pure egoism on the part of the individual ..."
Well, the whole history of the Jewish people must stand as a testament to the falsity of this outburst. But, as always with Adolf, there is that slight sparkling of truth, but in this case the truth of the above can apply to all of humanity. The demands of the individual ego burst forward in every group no matter how large or how small. The notion that a group will eventually feed upon itself, is as true of our own Nation as it was of the Nazis. In fact, the holocaust could very well be considered an example of German feeding upon German, and a lack of loyalty on the part of the German people as a whole. For, in fact, Jews were Germans, as Christ was a Jew. The competitive human instinct will feed upon others until there are no others and then it seems will turn to digesting itself.
I often wonder about the nature of competitiveness, and whether or not it is another of those human defects that we must guard with a vigilant restraint. We are all raised in the spirit of competition from our earliest days. We are taught that competition is good. But one does not have to be the most astute to recognize the bitterness, jealousy and hate that competition engenders. It may be this very quality that has filled our little Adolf to the gills in this book of his.
"... therefore he (the Jew) never was a nomad, but always only a parasite in the body of other peoples. That thereby he sometimes leaves his previous living quarters is not concerned with his intention, but is the simple logic of his being thrown out from time to time by the host nation he abuses. But his spreading is the typical symptom of all parasites; he always looks for a new feeding soil for his race ... In the Jews life as a parasite in the body of other nations and States, his characteristic is established which once caused Schopenhauer to pronounce the sentence, already mentioned, that the Jew is the 'great master of lying.' Life urges the Jew towards the lie, that is to a perpetual lie, just as it forces the inhabitants of northern countries to wear warm clothes ... His life within other peoples can only exist in the long run if he succeeds in creating the impression as though he were not a people but only a 'religious community' though a special one ... The Jews were always people with definite racial qualities, and never a religion ... The Jew can not possess a religious institution for the very reason that he lacks all idealism in any form and that he also does not recognize any belief in the hereafter ... The Talmud is then not a book for the preparation for the life to come, but rather for a practical and bearable life in this world ... His life is really only of this world, and his spirit is as alien to true Christianity, for instance, as his nature was two thousand years ago to the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his disposition towards the Jewish people, and when necessary He even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord’s temple this adversary of all humanity, who even then as always saw in religion only a means for his business existence ..."
Well, there is a mouthful. The fact that the Jews, up until this point, had no 'country' has certainly been a fact that has been used against them. But do the Roman Catholics have a country? Do the Lutherans have a country? Do the Muslims have a Country? Do Calvinist have a homeland? Does any Religion have a particular country? If we consider the Jew as a member of a Religion as it certainly must be considered, then we must disregard this notion as a justified criticism. One must wonder why Adolf did not consider the Democratic Christians as a group worthy of extermination. Why were not German Catholics thought of as people with a loyalty to a crown outside of the German nation? We know that German communists were to be repulsed, but if a 'good' German Communist recanted and became a Nazi, would he be forgiven his sins and be allowed to join in with his fellow Germans? A Catholic can become a Protestant, but can a Jew become a Jehovah's Witness? Is Karl Marx a Jew or a Protestant? It does seem that in World opinion - a Jew is a Jew, is a Jew, is a Jew.
It is interesting to note here that there is a theory that Adolf was himself part Jew. His Father being the illegitimate offspring of a relationship between his Grandmother, and a Rothschild in whose home she worked in one capacity or another. This 'fact' was supposedly known to Mr. Dollfuss, in Austria, the exposure of which allegedly led to his assassination by Nazi henchmen. In any case, it seems that it was necessary here for Adolf to 'expose' the Jews as a race and not a Religion, for the purposes of complete alienation.
Has this always been a problem with relation to the Jews? Have the Jews throughout History been considered as a 'Nation' rather than a Religion, or is this theory of German or Anti-Semitic Origin? The Jewish religion is and has traditionally been composed of many sects. These sects seem to span a range all the way from conservative orthodoxy, to a liberal agnosticism. It is also interesting to note that although Adolf criticizes the Jew for not having a nation, and being nothing more than a parasite on other nations, he is equally critical of the Zionist movement. It seems to me here that as a Jew, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. But once again Adolf is consistent. You are either willing to fight or a coward. But if you are willing to fight, but choose to fight against Adolf, you are a traitor.
"The Sublime Founder of the new doctrine"? And one must notice that Adolf chooses to capitalize the words "Sublime Founder". Is this an acknowledgement of the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is Adolf here proclaiming his Faith in Jesus Christ and Christianity? We must also remember his reference to the Philosophy of Love established by the Sublime Founder. Does Adolf consider himself a Christian to be aligned with the likes of say Constantine and other historically great Christian leaders of the past? Is Christianity a doctrine of 'Love', or a doctrine of War and conquest? I would imagine today that most Christians would align themselves with the former and not the later, but what does History say of this union?
Was there not an Inquisition? Were there not Crusades? Were there not Popes who were military generals? Onward Christian soldiers? Did not the new Christians persecute and attack and kill the Christ killers among their ranks? New Jew against Old Jew - could not Christianity be considered just another Jewish sect and Islam but another? Is the whole western civilization but one Jewish sect or another? We have to travel far to the East before we shed the Old Testament, and the legacy of the Jew. If we could estimate a historical body count, which religion would be the greater killer?
Adolf was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and right up until 1938 he received the praise of the reigning pope of the day. The question for investigation would be, at this point in history (1920 or so) what were the attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church? What was their attitude towards both Fascism, and Nazism? Whose side was Italy on in World War II? Why wasn't Italy partitioned after the war? Were there trials for Italian war criminals after the war? Did the Pope have to leave Rome in fear for his life? What did the Pope or the Popes of this era say about Fascism and Nazism? I know that the Pope of the day, Pius XII, established Vatican City as an independent state because of a compromise with Mussolini. The Christian voice was diminished because of another compromise made with Adolf and his Nazis. I also know that he stood and spoke out against atheistic communist Russia. "How many divisions has the Pope?" asked Stalin of the French leader M. Laval sarcastically in the early 1930's when the French were negotiating with the Russians for an alliance against Adolf. Could World War II be considered a 'Religious War', a modern day Crusade - believers against non-believers, Christians against Jews? On what side did the Arab nations of the world align themselves at this point in History? Were they Nazi and anti-Semites? Did they align themselves with Hitler and Mussolini during the war? Were they united or disunited in their cause? Lawrence of Arabia? Who the hell was he? And who was he fighting? Were the Arabs like the French, and Lawrence of Arabia like De Gaulle? Where was De Gaulle in the 1920s and 1930s? Where was he when the Germans attacked Paris? From whence sprang the Vichy government? How did this historical enemy of Germany develop their courtship with their age old rival? What led Frenchmen who fought so courageously at Flanders and the Marne and elsewhere, to cozy up to Adolf? What was the state or condition of anti-Semitism in France? What part of the French nation in terms of land area and people capitulated with the Nazis? Was the hatred of the Jews the banner of the Adolf Hitler Crusade? And was it this hatred of Jews that led to Adolf's support all over the world? General Petain? What was his story?
I have heard anti-Semites in my time ask the question that had Adolf succeeded in killing all of the Jews would not the world be a better place. But is the problem here Jews, or the nature and quality of hatred and jealousy in the human beast? If it were not Jews, would it not then be 'niggers'? If it were not niggers would it not be 'gooks', if it were not 'gooks' would it not be Puerto Ricans, or Cubans, or Chinks. In Bosnia it’s Croates, and in Croatia, it is Serbs. In my neighborhood it was once the 'harps' against the 'ginnies' followed by the Ginnies and the Harps against the Polacks. It almost seems that it is a part of the human condition to hate. And if there were no one to hate would the hatred then turn inward? And could it not be that all of this hatred is inward hate turned outward?
If one truly loved oneself and all of those qualities that made him human, would he then be able to truly hate anyone? Did Adolf love himself? Were not all of the things that he hated about the Jews, the exact same things he despised in his own people? Could we not follow this back to the psychological principal that what we hate and try to suppress in others, is exactly what we hate and try to suppress in ourselves?
Adolf tries to suppress in the world about him fear of evil. He tries to suppress evil by justifying it in terms consistent with his religious faith. Hence evil becomes not evil but good. Cruelty becomes kindness to the human species as a whole. Of course, I suppose that one could say that Adolf did not try to suppress evil or fear, but instead tried to promote these things. What he tried to suppress was any feelings of guilt that one might have for the promotion of evil acts or inculcating horror and fear into others. So if Adolf was suppressing anything in the world about him, it would be guilt or conscience.
Adolf hated anyone who was afraid to fight. Was he once fearful of battle and confrontation himself? Was he so frightened of the fighting in World War I that he had to incorporate a rationale that would give him the strength to understand and face his fears? Was Adolf an abused child? A testimony from Adolf's brother states that Adolf's father once beat Adolf into unconsciousness. Is an abused child more or less inclined to abuse others? What would be the human beings’ typical reaction towards abuse? 1) To pass this abuse onto others? 2) To shield and isolate oneself from the abuse of others? 3) To take steps to prevent abuse to ourselves and others? 4) To accept abuse as right and necessary, and therefore punish ourselves and abuse others? 5) To look upon abuse as an entitlement coupled with maturity, or rank?
I suppose that there might be as many different reactions to abuse as there are human personalities. Is courage and fear but opposite sides of the same coin? Was Adolf so fearful of death that he had to embrace it, seek it out and make it a part of himself in order to conquer his fear of it? Is this how we each react?
What is your personal reaction to your impending death? For that matter what is my reaction? I guess that my first reaction is and always has been resentment - at least to death in general.
When my father died when I was a child, I was very bitter. I was bitter and resentful. I was bitter towards society. It was the 'society' who refused to care for my dad in the manner I saw fit. It was the society that didn't provide my dad with a decent job. This made it impossible for him to provide for his wife and family. This made him feel that he was unworthy to be alive and to feel that he was not a decent man. This made him drink. This made him not want to be alive.
I was bitter towards my mother. She did not treat my dad in the manner I saw fit either. I was bitter towards my father. He did not do his best to try and stay alive. I felt that somehow he had died on purpose. Today when someone or something that I love dies, I feel a profound sadness and a deep loneliness. I feel personally inadequate. I always feel that somehow it has been my fault. I should have done something else, or something more.
What do I think when I contemplate my own death? I think that I will find peace and freedom from pain - but one never knows. I will miss those that I love and those that have loved me, but I don't know if I would want to perpetuate these relationships into an eternity.
When a little tabby cat that had been with me for over fifteen years died, I had the strongest urge to die with her. I felt a horrible pain of inadequacy. She was in such terrible fear. She was crying and screaming. She was experiencing a combination of stroke and heart failure. She didn't want to go. Even though she was paralyzed in her back legs, she crawled, and dragged herself to my bedroom door. She had always depended on me. I had named her Buddy because she followed me everywhere. For a time she even slept in the bed beside me. I felt that she didn't know what to do. She was frightened. I had picked her up into my arms, but in her confusion and fear she snapped at me. When she realized that she had almost bitten me, she immediately began to lick my hand on the spot that she had just snapped at. I felt that she was the bravest most lovable little thing that I ever knew. Even in this horrible fear, with her heart stopping, and her legs not working and who knows what else, she still realized that she had struck out at me, and so she licked at me in apology for fear of losing my friendship. I have never experienced such friendship from another human being. I was so sad. But even at this moment, my mind turned to Philosophy. If I were to die right there and then, simultaneously with my little Buddy, would we pass through that final mist together? Or would we just both disappear each into our own oblivion?
What of my wife? Are we not equally good friends? How could I leave her? And is it not a fact of this life that we must live it until the end? I can not die and be with you, for in truth I may not be with you, ever. So I must stand and watch my Buddy die, as I will eventually stand and watch myself die. I must visit with death without resentment because the resentment only causes anguish and pain. I must stay alive and bleed for your memory, for in fact, all that is sure is what is. All that is real is what we are at the moment and what we have shared together, and there may never be any more. And it too will disappear when we disappear.
Strangely, in a way, Buddy will be alive as long as I am alive. And how I make these lovely things live is by keeping them alive forever in my memory, and then possibly forever by passing them onto you. For then once my loves have infiltrated your memory, they will continue to live even beyond me. So when I write about these things and myself, I am really tricking you into carrying me into the future - possibly into eternity.
I can not go, even to comfort anybody. I can only sit and wait. The words, 'I want to die, I want to die' just kept repeating over and over in my mind. I wanted to pass through the barrier of death with my little Buddy in my arms so that I could show her that there was nothing to be afraid of. But I could not, because this would be just a wish - a wish with no support, only one of any number of possibilities.
Could we then not interpret fear of one's death as the inability of one to come to grips with his own mortality and/or the death of those one loves, and thusly an inability to reconcile himself with his own existence or creation? Then do we not once again return to the possible source of all hatred as being steeped in the frustration of our lives, and the lives of those we love being placed in an arbitrary state of existence? A cruel hard existence culminating in death, no matter which way we turn, no matter how we try to prevent it? Isn't this the state or condition of all mankind? Isn't this the reason for all philosophy, theology, and religion? And isn't this exactly what Adolf is all about - the rectification of a philosophy or faith that conforms to the reality of his life? And the reality of life being, as for us all, a witness to death and cruelty, our own suffering and death, and the suffering and death of those we love.
How could God kill us and those we love without explanation or answer? We must find and answer, or live in a state of anguish, and fear. Anguish and fear leads to frustration, anxiety, and discontent. Discontent leads to hate and anger and the desire to free ourselves of the situation that has caused us these problems.
Was Adolf subconsciously seeking suicide? But being unable to face his own destruction and death, he opted for the next best alternative - punishing and destroying others?
Killing others satisfies the personal frustration caused by ones self-hate and confusion and frustration just as one might punch a tree or kick a dog to release minor personal frustration. Is sadism at its root, masochism?
Adolf wished to die, but could not face his own death. He satisfied the feelings of ambivalence engendered in this attitude by wishing for, instigating and indulging in administering and torturing and participating in the pain, suffering and death of others. One can not kill God. One can only show ones disapproval for the life situation, the arbitrary life situation, by punishing oneself, or by punishing other people, animals or even other living things. But what would be a positive reaction to this frustration of the arbitrary life and death situation? Can we not accept ourselves and this life as a finite experience, to be taken at its worth or basic face value? To be enjoyed, or not to be enjoyed, a matter of our own selection, or attitude - life, with oblivion before it and oblivion after it with no necessity for redemption, or justification? Simply being in itself and for itself, and nothing more? Can we not accept this as the fact of life as we can only know it, with everything and anything else being only speculation and human fantasy, imagination and wishful thinking? Is not creativity but a positive way of channeling our personal frustrations into some positive direction? Could it not be that birth and the creation of new life is one of the frustrated answers of the human to the irreconcilable question of life and death? Is the concept of loneliness a part of all of this? And is it not true that the miserable love company? How many bring new life into the world in an attempt to alleviate their personal pain and suffering?
A positive reaction towards death is to fight for life, to promote longevity in ourselves and others, to create new life, and try to sustain and preserve the old. To try and conquer death, to expand on the human life span, possibly widening the gap between life and death to eternity. Conquer sickness and disease. Fight against cruelty, war and destruction. To try and figure out the causes of pain, suffering, war, killing, death and destruction.
Hate? If it is innately human, how can this energy be channeled for good? Hate the evil? Hate the pain? Hate the cruelty? Hate the frustration? Hate a God who is the supposed source of all of these frustrations, the Creator of good and evil? Or more 'existentially' hate our lack of intellect and our personal inability to psychologically cope or find the root to our own frustrations - evil? Hate the attitudes that promote these things, and seek rational reconciliation.
To seek spiritualism and faith and hope in a cruel God, I do not see as a positive answer, but more in line with contributing to the overall hate and frustration. Belief in an evil or abusive God does not provide a rational answer or solution and leaves the burden on mankind. If we could rationally correlate God with the Devil then burden the Devil as the source of all of our personal frustrations and inadequacies, and then make the devil our object of derision we could then alleviate our guilt and frustration. The problem is in separating good from evil or God for the Devil.
Religion is the attempt of theologians to accomplish this feat.
Adolf followed conventional religious thinking but took it one step further. He coupled the Jew with the concept of the devil. Adolf found an external object for his internal hatred. How much better off we all would have been if he had simply shot himself.
But Adolf also hated guilt. He would not accept guilt for any part of his actions in life. So he vented his personal frustration, pain, anguish, and hatred on others. Obviously he was not inclined to the notion and attitude of the Sublime Founder of the Philosophy of Love who said - Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. And could we reinterpret these words as saying in effect - why blame others who are no better off and basically in the same boat as we, in their understanding of the nature and source of human hatred.

Galileo vs Aristotle

Aristotle vs. Galileo

Deep Thoughts

By Richard E. Noble

Aristotle first observed that a body at rest tends to remain at rest, and that it will not move unless acted upon by some external force. For example, a rock will remain on the ground unless somebody picks it up and throws it; or a bullet will remain in a gun, an arrow in a quiver, or a canon ball in a canon. Everybody seemed to like this type of thinking until Galileo came along.
Galileo, being an astronomer, concluded from his observations that a body in motion tends to remain in motion and will not be stopped or diverted from its course unless some sort of external force was brought into play. Scientists now claim that Galileo was correct and Aristotle was wrong.
In observing the planets and stars out in space Galileo does seem correct, but in observing this situation here on earth Aristotle seems to be doing fine.
The planets in space seem to be in constant motion. But the question persists, how did they originally get moving? If you say that they are in motion and have always been in motion, and that their motion is the product of mutually compensating, perpetually infinite initiatives. You are an atheist, or a pantheist or at least stating the Divinity or Eternity of the Universe. And I dare say you would agree with Galileo's observations, and the notion that a body in motion tends to remain in motion, and will forever do so.
If you say that the Universe was initiated by a Big Bang, then you still must explain where the energy from the "Big Bang" originated. But the very fact that you postulate a Big Bang presupposes that you are really an Aristotelian. You are suggesting that bodies in motion need a start or an external force in order to get them into motion. You therefore must believe as your basic tenet that a body at rest tends to remain at rest and will only be put into motion by some sort of external force acting upon it. So then if Aristotle and Galileo are truly in opposition, your Big Bang stance suggests that you believe Aristotle and not Galileo.
Isaac Newton suggested that there was a force acting upon all bodies in the Universe called Gravity. He further stated that this force could be calculated, and he did so. But when asked how everything got moving in the first place, he suggested that everything was first tossed into movement via the hand of God. God started motion by tossing the stars and the planets out into space, then instituted gravity and whatever other forces of nature to keep everything "floating."
To the followers of Newton, the world will end whenever God decides to remove his force or his hand in the matter.
To the proponents of the Big Bang, the Universe will end when the energy expended in the Big Bang expires.
But, if Galileo speaks the truth, and "a body in motion tends to remain in motion" is the first principle of the Universe, then there was no Big Bang and there is no God, and just like "a country boy" the Universe will survive.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

By Richard E. Noble

Sigmund Freud is listed in every book of great thinkers that any of us have probably ever encountered. Freud's area of discovery was the human mind. Trying to figure out what it is that he actually discovered is not so easy. His discovery with regards to the human mind is called Psychoanalysis. Via processes and techniques, Freud tried to analyze how the human mind functioned. How it worked. How a human being actually thinks. Today his ideas are so commonplace in all of our lives that it is impossible to imagine that there was a time when these ideas were not known and accepted.
If you want to know what makes your husband tick, for example. You will want to know what his parents were like. What kind of a childhood he had. What was his education? What kind of company did he keep? What books does he read? What does he aspire to? What are his fears? What are his hopes and dreams, his idiosyncrasies, his peculiarities? What does he believe in? What is his Faith? What were the social mores and customs of his native land? Who does he admire? Who does he hate? We can go on and on, and it all seems like plain, old common sense. Yet, this is all supposedly Freudian. It's called psychoanalysis. It's sublimation and repression, and sub-conscious and conscious. It's association. It's transference. It's ego and id and super ego. Even a misplaced word or slip of the tongue could be defined as Freudian. The influences of our particular sexuality on our ways of thinking and our conclusions and actions, is all Freudian.
So how did we analyze the workings of the human mind before Freud? I don't know. And what is worse, I can't even imagine. Today many people tell us that Freud was wrong. About what?
Freud was interested in the human mind; in diseases that were the product of mental processes and not physical conditions within the body. He was interested in dreams and their reason and origin in the human mind. When he expressed many of his fundamental theories and discoveries, he was literally laughed at by the medical community of his day. He discovered that many mental illnesses were merely an exaggeration of "normal" inhibitions, fears or aspirations.
He studied hysteria and hypnotism under a doctor named Charcot. He worked on his dream theories with Carl Jung. He proposed theories like the Oedipus Complex. This Complex suggested that a child has a tendency to fall in love with the parent of the opposite sex and harbors feeling of competition and resentment towards the parent of the same sex. My personal theory is that a child has a tendency to like people who treat him kindly and tends to dislike people who treat him unkindly. This goes for parents as well as strangers. In fact, the child often times can't tell one from the other.
Freud theorized that even small children had a sexual nature. I feel that sex comes to most of us somewhat suddenly and is quite a shock. We then learn a little more about it from friends, neighbors, relatives and parents, after which, we give some form of it a try, and then can't stop doing it. During this compulsive period we justify our neurotic, psychotic, irrational, perverted antics in every possible way. When suddenly the urge dissipates and we wake up, we can hardly believe that we were ever inclined to behave in such a manner and we try to guide our children and the rest of mankind accordingly. It doesn't seem to be working.

The Eastpointer

Buying a Shower

By Richard E. Noble

In Honor of Hobo-ing America now being on sale at Amazon, I thought a hobo tale would be appropriate.
For those of you who have never spent five or ten years living in a Chevy van under bridges, farmers' equipment shelters, in orange groves, apple orchards, grocery store parking lots, rest areas etc., this should be a new insight.
One big memory that both my wife and I still talk about today is stopping to buy a hot shower.
I'll bet that you didn't know that you could buy a hot shower. Well, when we were on the road you could buy a hot shower at most any campground.
Bathing with a gallon jug, a sponge and a face cloth has its rewarding aspects, but after a while the thought of a lingering hot shower becomes overpowering. To think of standing under a continuous flow of clean hot water and luxuriating, actually became a compulsion and periodically through our years on the road we had to give in and throw away a dollar each on that extravagance.
Never since our return to civilized living have I ever turned on our shower or our water tap at home without thinking of the wonder of it all. That little turn knob or lever on your sink or bath tub is not actually connected to God. And the fact that water comes spewing forth is not really a miracle. It takes a whole bunch of pipes and a whole system of people to make that experience the reality which is taken for granted by us all.
How many of us ever wonder where that water comes from and how it gets to our homes? When we first "homesteaded" our place here in Eastpoint, my brother-in-law and me pounded down both our water wells. We still have our well functioning. We use the water for the garden.
I can remember the guilt caused by my lingering at one of those $1.00 campground showers. I often thought the lady or fellow who sold me the shower would grab me on my way out and yell, "Do you realize that you used 150 gallons of hot water just now!" But it never happened.
We often got by on five one gallon containers of water per week in our travels. It takes five gallons of water just to flush the average house toilet one time. Your automatic clothes washer and dish washer are unbelievable in the number of gallons of water they consume. Carol and I once hauled every gallon of water that we used. I don't think that there are enough hours in a week for us to haul all the water we use today in our civilized existence.
As back-to-the-land-ers in Arkansas we got our drinking water from a mountain stream that ran through our property and we bathed in rain water that we caught in our canoe. We thought that we were doing great until we heard a warning on the radio about the danger of drinking water from a mountain stream. Pure mountain stream water is filled with chemicals and herbicides sprayed on the wilderness forests. Just because you live in the middle of a National Forest or wilderness area that doesn't mean your water is safe to drink. Form then on we had to drive 20 miles once a week to a free artesian well in Mena, Arkansas for our water.
In some primitive campsites that we stayed at, water had to be hauled from a central location via a hand pump. When you have to walk to a well and then pump by hand every gallon and then haul it back to your home, you become very stingy in your use of water.
Here in Eastpoint my wife and I use 900 gallons of water per month each, but that is nothing compared to what most average city folks use today. The average person in the U.S. uses more than 3,000 gallons per month. Americans use 408 billion gallons a day. If we had to haul all that water from the pump in town to our homes I'll bet that 408 billion would shrink considerably. If we estimate the difference between what we actually need to live and what we use, to be waste - holy moley!
Today my wife and I really feel spoiled: we have indoor plumbing, we hop into the shower whenever we feel like it, and we have electricity - in every room! We even have an automatic dishwasher. I don't know whether to feel grateful, guilty, or privileged. I guess I should feel a whole bunch of each. In this respect one can truly say, God bless America!

Hobo-ing America and A Summer with Charlie are books written by Richard E. Noble. They are now both available on Amazon.com. If you would like to stock my books in your local bookstore or business, contact me at 670-8076 or e-mail me at richardedwardnoble@gtcom.net

Does Anybody Know There's a War Going On!

Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

I think it was 1968. I was at what would today be called a "Sports Bar." There were large TVs elevated on every wall. The place was packed. The bar which was in the center of three large rooms was full. People were lined up to get a round of beers or mixed drinks. There were two bartenders that doubled as waiters but they were swamped. The back room was filled with older people and families. The placed served great sandwiches. The nightly news was on all the TVs. The news was all about Vietnam. It seemed as if it was the same news every night over and over.
Three young men came in the front door. They looked to be around 18 or 20 years old. One of them looked up at the Vietnam news on one of the TVs and then looked around the packed restaurant. Suddenly he screamed, "Does anybody here know there's a war going on?"
The whole place went quiet. Everybody turned and stared at the guys standing at the door. I was playing cards with some of my friends at a table. The card game stopped as all my friends turned.
After a few moments, the two guys who were with the boy who yelled grabbed him by the arms and hustled him back out the door.
In a moment or two the rumble of the crowd resumed. People returned to their sandwiches and beer and their conversations. No one at my table mentioned the incident. I don't think that anybody mentioned it.
I know that the two bartenders were World War II veterans. One of them had a boy who was in the Airborne. He was jumping out of planes and was at that moment in Asia someplace.
I know that there were a couple of Korean War veterans sitting in the family room with their wives having sandwiches.
I was pretty young myself. I was wondering what everybody else was thinking. One really couldn't tell by just observing the faces. Nobody looked angry or upset. They had all just stopped and stared.
A few months later Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not run again for President. Then the Democratic convention in Chicago broke out. When I saw that on TV, I remember thinking that America was over. It was a horror story.
The polls at the time said that 80% of the American people were against the war and they wanted out. This was the worst period in America's history in my lifetime.
The Democrats were not popular, they had started this war. Richard Nixon, a Republican, promised that he would end it. The war went on until 1977. Nixon got thrown out of office because despite his claims to the contrary, he was a crook. According to the memoirs of Gerald Ford, admitting his criminal guilt was a mandatory condition of his pardon. He supposedly signed a document admitting his guilt.
The war ended during Gerald Ford's administration, but Gerald Ford did not end it. The legislature ended it by refusing to allocate more finances. I imagine that was a first in American History. We had another first. We had a president and a vice president who were both appointed by congress and not elected by the people. Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, of all people, was the vice president.
Some attributed the end of the war to the massive protests, and the college students. Others claim it was the press and the media.
Interestingly enough Mr. Hoffer, former owner of the Franklin Chronicle, who was a staunch Vietnam veteran, and a media fanatic, disagreed with both of the above mentioned causes. I was rather surprised. I asked him what stopped the war in his opinion. He said that it was the thousands of returning Vietnam veterans who year after year after year reported to their friends and families what was happening over there. The press simply did what it was supposed to do, he said and the college students were yelling and screaming to no avail for years. But when the veterans came home and told their moms and dads and their friends and relatives what a horror and disaster the whole thing was, that is what roused the negative support of the nation; that is what got all the voting parents and adults writing to their Congressmen and Senators; that is what ended the war, he told me.
I don't know what really ended the Vietnam War but I do think that I know what those people were thinking in that sports bar that evening.
Yes, everybody in that room knew that there was a war going on. It was on everybody's mind day and night. They were all well aware that there was a war going on. They knew how many were dying - they got a body count every evening. Everybody knew that there was a war going on. Some were rebellious, some were angry, some were worried, some just cried - but they all knew. And today everybody knows that there is a war going on. And as in 1968 most have no idea what to do about it - but don't you worry, they know!

The Bonus Army of 1932

Striking America

By Richard E. Noble

In 1932 nearly one out of every four workers were unemployed, approximately twelve million individuals. Of those that were employed half were working part time or on temporary status, and almost all were receiving wages on a subsistence level or lower. A million and a half to two million "hoboes" were estimated to be riding the rods and living beside the railroad tracks in hobo jungles. Hoovervilles were springing up next to luxury flats, food and grain were abundant in storage elevators while people went hungry, lined up at soup kitchens or starved in the streets. The U.S. had emerged victorious from World War I. It was now the richest country in the world. It had gleaned nearly all of the world of its gold and had most of Europe sending it payments. So what was going on?
John Maynard Kaynes tells us of the mystery of the disappearing "saving". Most every historian tells of inflated stocks and over speculation. We hear stories of sagging business spirals and the re-occurring peeks and valleys of the investment "cycles". Some talk of a banking conspiracy and the collapse of paper currency or the Federal Reserve System. Only the Communists tell us of a class war between the rich and the poor, between the profiteers and the profitless. Being, of course, stanch anti-Communists we deny any possibility of linking the truth to anything that these Communists propose.
It was not so in 1932. Many Americans were Socialists and Communists and a belief of a conspiracy of the rich against the poor was prevalent and wide spread in the U.S. This notion was still being denied in the 1950's by even the liberal economist, John Kenneth Galbraith.
"No one was responsible for the great Wall Street Crash. No one engineered the speculation that preceded it. Both were the product of the free choice and decision of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The latter were not led to the slaughter ... True, as the liberal misanthropes have insisted, the rich were getting richer much faster than the poor were getting less poor..."
Galbraith and Kaynes are both very convincing and extremely knowledgeable and intelligent, but they are both members of the class being accused of the crime or conspiracy. I am impressed both by what they say and how they say it. But I am more impressed by what they both seem to leave out of their analyses. My common sense tells me that a rich man is not going to move quickly and easily toward condemning the rich and wealthy. But in reading my history it becomes quite obvious that the rich have traditionally been very willing to challenge the poor to the right to what little they possess. To overlook or dismiss the notion that the wealthy and super wealthy may have played an active part in undermining the middle and upper middle and, of course, the lower classes via underhandedness and conspiratory behavior, would be extremely naive and certainly a disservice to history and the exploration of truth.
The post Civil War period, extending up to the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt was a time of great exploitation of the poor and the working classes. The Robber Barons of the later part of the 19th century, the investigations into the financial holdings of the trusts and conglomerates of the time under the Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson administrations; the financial scandals under the Grant and Harding administrations; the exploitation and profiteering exposed in investigations after Word War I; the nefarious history of industry in general and the armament industry in particular; the exploits of businessmen bankers and financiers throughout the American Industrial Revolution would make anyone who cavalierly dismissed the possible unscrupulous role of the "rich and famous" in the 1929 disaster, naive to say the least.
I would be more inclined to take Kaynes and Galbraith with a grain of salt, knowing that they were both well aware of what happened to the rich and wealthy in Russia in 1917 and to the rich and wealthy of France in 1793. For them to start accusing the rich and wealthy of dirty deeds might very well be a candle that neither of them was inclined to ignite. I don't blame them. But for myself, I want to know the truth. I have no ax to grind and no one type or class of people who I wish to see eliminated. I have no doubt that when the poor or the middle become the upper and the super, there would be those among this new crowd, despite their background and their roots, who would act in no less an unscrupulous, immoral manner. We have only to look at the collapse of today's Mother Russia to find the truth in this proposition. But only in knowing and understanding what really happened can anything in the future ever be corrected. Money and markets don't collapse by themselves. Markets are manipulated by investors and money comes from the pockets and bank accounts of individuals. People caused the stock market crash of 1929 and people caused the depression.
Money "disappeared" says John Maynard Kaynes. Money does not disappear. It goes someplace. It is also not water flowing in an uncontrollable rush. It is controlled and manipulated by individuals. Very few people controlled a huge portion of American capital in those days. A congressional investigation under Teddy Roosevelt showed that as few as a dozen men were in control of nearly eighty percent of the U.S. economy. None of these men lost in the 1929 collapse. Good fortune, I suppose.
We know, or should know, from reading our own history that our Government has from its very beginning been in the hands of the rich and the powerful. We also know that all of these governments have favored the advancement of their class. They have invariably been on the side of business and big business. We also know from reading "Striking America" that the working man and his Labor Unions have not been overly successful in convincing the "haves" of their obligation to share what they have accumulated with the "have-nots" up to this period.
Herbert Hoover when asked in 1932 why so many people were now selling apples on street corners told his inquirer that selling apples on a street corner must clearly be more lucrative than what these people were previously engaged in. In 1932 Herbert Hoover had machine guns on the roof of the White House. He lived as a virtual prisoner in the Nation's Capital. He expected, as did many others, an armed revolution. Legislators were giving speeches on the House and Senate floor about how America needed a man like Mussolini in Italy, or Adolf Hitler in Germany. Men who were not afraid to put down the peasant rabble, bust the unions, and imprison their leaders. Of course we had Woodrow Wilson who performed all of these tasks, and joined in a World War to suppress similar activities abroad to boot. But even these measures had not stemmed the tide of discontent. Years of persecution and war had certainly weakened the man in the street.
Abroad, the common man had been pitted against foreign armies in battle for his life. At home they were pitted against one another in their struggle for decent wages, better working conditions and life with hope for themselves and their children. By 1932 most of the common heard were tired of fighting. They were confused by the patriotic propaganda and turned against the violent and reactionary behavior of their own kind. They had been drafted and sent off to war; they had their heads battered in by hired bullies, Pinkertons, strike breakers, Militia, police, state and federal troops. But, yet, here they were once again unemployed by the millions, their families without food or homes, and they were living in the wealthiest country in the world. What was going on? Where had all the money gone?
Hoover was getting rid of the federal government's share of wealth as fast as he possibly could. The cry in the streets was that Hoover had billions for the wealthy and nothing for the poor. This seemed to be fairly accurate. Hoover was not only giving tax cuts to the wealthy and the super wealthy, he was giving out billions to the rich industrialist. They were all supposed to be using this money to invest in America. Their investment would then "trickle down" to the unemployed and the less fortunate. But the moneyed people had a different plan for their dollars. They were converting them into gold and shipping them out of the country as fast as they could. Gold was leaving the U.S. to the tune of one hundred million a week. So much for the "trickle down" theory.
The rich were bailing off the sinking, socialist, American ship and seeking greener pasture in "safe" countries like Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark etc. America was no longer a safe place for capital, and maybe capitalists. The Fascists had the right idea. Bring out the troops; bust some heads; better a dead, than a red. The rich and the wealthy were not even paying their taxes where they could get away with it. And they were getting away with it big time. Not only that, Hoover and this administration were helping them with abatements and refunds wherever possible.
Plenty of individuals had profited from the stock market crash in 1929. Joseph Kennedy, Bernard Barauch, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan and others. The Federal Reserve, under J. P. Morgan, cashed in vast holding shortly before black Friday. The Rothchilds, Montagu Normand of the Bank of England, and the Bank of France all seemed to benefit somehow. Lots of wealthy people suddenly became super-dupper wealthy people. I suppose this all could just be coincidence.
In any case, in May of 1932 in Portland, Oregon, some unemployed World War I veterans got together. Probably inspired by Coxey's army of unemployed who marched out in the name of Christian brotherhood and charity during the depression of 1893, they too headed for Washington D.C. They chose as their leader, Walter W. Waters an ex-sergeant and unemployed cannery superintendent. Waters had been unemployed for eighteen months. They decided that the only money that any of them had coming was in the form of a "bonus" promised to them by the U.S. Government as an "Adjusted Compensation" for doing their part in World War I. This bonus was not due, according to Congress, until the year 1945 but it was being considered form immediate payment under a bill submitted by Wright Patman. On June 15, the House had passed the Patman Bill. The bonus, if they could get it, amounted to five hundred dollars. Not a lot of money but substantial for their circumstances in 1932. They called themselves, sarcastically, the Bonus Expeditionary Force, B.E.F.
They met their first resistance in St. Louis where they were greeted by officials of the B&O railroad. The National Guard was called out and the B.E.F. was loaded onto trucks and deported out of the state. But the B.E.F. was not deterred and by the time they had arrived in Washington, they had an Army of a thousand or more. Other veterans had heard about the Bonus Expeditionary Force from the press about the "Battle of the B&O" and very shortly thereafter there were 20,000 veterans or more stationed in Washington D.C. Many of their families would soon arrive. The administration wanted to bring out the machine guns that they had used on the Communists hunger marchers the year before. But the chief of Police, Pelham D. Glassford, the youngest brigadier-general in the AEF in France, was sympathetic to their cause. He helped them set up camp and even brought them supplies.
The Senate defeated the bill. Hoover would not even go out and speak to the men. He said that they were nothing but red-rabble troublemakers. The ex-soldiers, who had marched up to the Capital in anticipation of the vote, formed into ranks and marched in order and defeat back to their makeshift quarters. With nothing else to do, and no jobs in their future a good many of them decided to stay right there camped along side the Anacosta River, "Stay till 1945" was the cry. Glassford contributed a thousand dollars worth of food and supplies out of his own savings. But by the end of two months, things were getting pretty rank in the rank and file. The B.E.F. was not a bunch of happy campers.
Hoover was talking to boy scouts, housewives and collage sororities but he had not a word for the B.E.F. On July 26, Secretary of War Hurley complained of the law-abiding nature of the group. If there were and incident of violent behavior, they could then declare martial law.
On July 28, the District Police would create just such an incident. They went in to roust out some veterans who were holding up in a number of abandoned buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue. Some of the veterans lost their tempers and resisted. A jittery policeman drew his gun and began shooting into the crowd of disgruntled vets. Then other policemen began firing. Glassford ordered the men to stop shooting at the unarmed veterans, but not before two vets were killed and several others wounded. Hoover then called out the federal troops.
It was General Douglas MacArthur, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower and Officer George S. Patton Jr. who came to put down the B.E.F. with tear gas, tanks, machine guns and bayonets. Eugene King, a seven year old, was stabbed in the leg trying to return to his tent to rescue his pet rabbit, and Joe Angelo watched as a young officer whose life he had saved in Europe burnt his tent and all his possessions to the ground. Joe Angelo had received the Distinguished Cross for saving, now regretfully, the sorry butt of George S. Patton. Patton didn't and couldn't deny that it was Angelo who had saved his life, but stated that Angelo may have exaggerated his deed. I suppose if we listen to Patton's version of the story, he should have been the one to get the medal. Or maybe Patton didn't feel that saving his life was really worth awarding a Distinguished Cross to anyone.
MacArthur said that the ex-soldiers were about to seize the U.S. government. MacArthur had bravely and fearlessly saved his commander and chief and his senate cohorts from a horrible death in the hands of an unarmed group of World War I veterans, assisted by their terrifying screaming wives and children. A group that had been camped peacefully for over two months, living in poverty and squalor at the base of our Capital, and within walking distance of our National monuments, petitioning for what they had been promised for their brave overseas heroism. This sad, pathetic group of ex-soldiers was separated from their wives and children, cut off at every possible exit, until they were totally defeated in spirit and everything they had was burnt to the ground.
Old soldiers never die, they are simply routed, burnt out, cheated and scattered by younger soldiers on horseback, brandishing swords and bayonets. I wonder if MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton got a "bonus" themselves for that day's activities? I certainly hope so.
The American people were told by Hoover and his administration that the B.E.F was mainly composed of criminals and Communists. Later historical investigations show this to be false. Almost all those assembled at Anacosta were World War I veterans. In any case America's reaction to the incident was one of universal apathy. In the year 1932 it appears that the American people were not only down and out, but on their knees.

1) The Crisis of the Old Order 1919-1933, Arthur M. Schlesinger, JR.
2) the Crisis of the Old Order, A. Schlesinger, JR., page 252.
3) Books used in this essay: "The Crisis of the Old Order", 1919-1933, Arthur M. Schlesinger, JR.; "The Great Crash" 1929, John Kenneth Galbraith; "The Rise of Industrial America, Page Smith; "The Glory and the Dream", William Manchester; The Annals of America vol 15, 1929-1939.