"Every man a King"

[Waterstar]

"Is that a right of life when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it is by 120,000,000 people?”

Senator -Huey P. Long

If only history were studied more, there would be less surprises and a lot less strategic issues. If people would study history, they would know that "today's crisis" is often old news. This address was delivered by Senator Huey Long in 1934:

Radio Address by Senator Huey P. Long, of Louisiana, February 23, 1934

Ladies and Gentlemen: —

I have only 30 minutes in which to speak to you this evening, and I, therefore, will not be able to discuss in detail so much as I can write when I have all of the time and space that is allowed me for the subjects, but I will undertake to sketch them very briefly without manuscript or preparation, so that you can understand them so well as I can tell them to you tonight.

I contend, my friends, that we have no difficult problem to solve in America, and that is the view of nearly everyone with whom I have discussed the matter here in Washington and elsewhere throughout the United States—that we have no very difficult problem to solve.

It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country—and by rich people I mean the super-rich—will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people.

We have a marvelous love for this Government of ours; in fact, it is almost a religion, and it is well that it should be, because we have a splendid form of government and we have a splendid set of laws. We have everything here that we need, except that we have neglected the fundamentals upon which the American Government was principally predicated.

How many of you remember the first thing that the Declaration of Independence said? It said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain inalienable rights for the people, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and it said further, "We hold the view that all men are created equal."

Now, what did they mean by that? Did they mean, my friends, to say that all men are created equal and that that meant that any one man was born to inherit $10,000,000,000 and that another child was to be born to inherit nothing?

Did that mean, my friends, that someone would come into this world without having had an opportunity, of course, to have hit one lick of work, should be born with more than it and all of its children and children's children could ever dispose of, but that another one would have to be born into a life of starvation?

That was not the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that all men are created equal or "That we hold that all men are created equal."

Nor was it the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that they held that there were certain rights that were inalienable—the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is that right of life, my friends, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it by 120,000,000 people?

Is that, my friends, giving them a fair shake of the dice or anything like the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or anything resembling the fact that all people are created equal; when we have today in America thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of children on the verge of starvation in a land that is overflowing with too much to eat and too much to wear?

I do not think you will contend that, and I do not think for a moment that they will contend it.

Now let us see if we cannot return this Government to the Declaration of Independence and see if we are going to do anything regarding it. Why should we hesitate or why should we quibble or why should we quarrel with one another to find out what the difficulty is, when we know that the Lord told us what the difficulty is, and Moses wrote it out so a blind man could see it, then Jesus told us all about it, and it was later written in the Book of James, where everyone could read it?

I refer to the Scriptures, now, my friends, and give you what it says not for the purpose of convincing you of the wisdom of myself, not for the purpose, ladies and gentlemen, of convincing you of the fact that I am quoting the Scriptures means that I am to be more believed than someone else; but I quote you the Scripture, or rather refer you to the Scripture, because whatever you see there you may rely upon will never be disproved so long as you or your children or anyone may live; and you may further depend upon the fact that not one historical fact that the Bible has ever contained has ever yet been disproved by any scientific discovery or by reason of anything that has been disclosed to man through his own individual mind or through the wisdom of the Lord which the Lord has allowed him to have.

But the Scripture says, ladies and gentlemen, that no country can survive, or for a country to survive it is necessary that we keep the wealth scattered among the people, that nothing should keep the wealth scattered among the people, that nothing should be held permanently by any one person, and that 50 years seems to be the year of jubilee in which all property would be scattered about and returned to the sources from which it originally came, and every seventh year debt should be remitted.

Those two things the Almighty said to be necessary—I should say He knew to be necessary, or else He would not have so prescribed that the property would be kept among the general run of the people, and that everyone would continue to share in it; so that no one man would get half of it and hand it down to a son, who takes half of what was left, and that son hand it down to another one, who would take half of what was left, until, like a snowball going downhill, all of the snow was off of the ground except what the snowball had.

I believe that was the judgment and the view and the law of the Lord, that we would have to distribute wealth ever so often, in order that there could not be people starving to death in a land of plenty, as there is in America today.

We have in America today more wealth, more goods, more food, more clothing, more houses than we have ever had. We have everything in abundance here.

We have the farm problem, my friends, because we have too much cotton, because we have too much wheat, and have too much corn, and too much potatoes.

We have a home loan problem, because we have too many houses, and yet nobody can buy them and live in them.

We have trouble, my friends, In the country, because we have too much money owing, the greatest indebtedness that has ever been given to civilization, where it has been shown that we are incapable of distributing the actual things that are here, because the people have not money enough to supply themselves with them, and because the greed of a few men is such that they think it is necessary that they own everything, and their pleasure consists in the starvation of the masses, and in their possessing things they cannot use, and their children cannot use, but who bask in the splendor of sunlight and wealth, casting darkness and despair and impressing it on everyone else.

"So, therefore," said the Lord in effect, "if you see these things that now have occurred and exist in this and other countries, there must be a constant scattering of wealth in any country if this country is to survive."

"Then," said the Lord, in effect, "every seventh year there shall be a remission of debts; there will be no debts after 7 years." That was the law.

Now, let us take America today. We have in America today, ladies and gentlemen, $272,000,000,000 of debt. Two hundred and seventy-two thousand millions of dollars of debts are owed by the various people of this country today. Why, my friends, that cannot be paid. It is not possible for that kind of debt to be paid.

The entire currency of the United States is only $6,000,000,000. That is all of the money that we have got in America today. All the actual money you have got in all of your banks, all that you have got in the Government Treasury, is $6,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid it out today you would still owe $266,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid again you would still owe $260,000,000,000; and if you took it, my friends, 20 times and paid it you would still owe $150,000,000,000.

You would have to have 45 times the entire money supply of the United States today to pay the debts of the people of America and then they would just have to start out from scratch, without a dime to go on with.

So, my friends, it is impossible to pay all of these debts, and you might as well find out that it cannot be done. The United States Supreme Court has definitely found out that it could not be done, because, in a Minnesota case, it held that when a State has postponed the evil day of collecting a debt it was a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, if I may proceed to give you some other words that I think you can understand—I am not going to belabor you by quoting tonight—I am going to tell you what the wise men of all ages and all times, down even to the present day, have all said: That you must keep the wealth of the country scattered, and you must limit the amount that any one man can own. You cannot let any man own §300,000,000,000 or $400,000,000,000. If you do, one man can own all of the wealth that the United States has in it.

Now, my friends, if you were off on an island where there were 100 lunches, you could not let one man eat up the hundred lunches, or take the hundred lunches and not let anybody else eat any of them. If you did, there would not be anything else for the balance of the people to consume.

So, we have in America today, my friends, a condition by which about 10 men dominate the means of activity in at least 85 percent of the activities that you own. They either own directly everything or they have got some kind of mortgage on it, with a very small percentage to be excepted. They own the banks, they own the steel mills, they own the railroads, they own the bonds, they own the mortgages, they own the stores, and they have chained the country from one end to the other until there is not any kind of business that a small, independent man could go into today and make a living, and there is not any kind of business that an independent man can go into and make any money to buy an automobile with; and they have finally and gradually and steadily eliminated everybody from the fields in which there is a living to be made, and still they have got little enough sense to think they ought to be able to get more business out of it anyway.

If you reduce a man to the point where he is starving to death and bleeding and dying, how do you expect that man to get hold of any money to spend with you? It is not possible.

Then, ladies and gentlemen, how do you expect people to live, when the wherewith cannot be had by the people?

In the beginning I quoted from the Scriptures. I hope you will understand that I am not quoting Scripture to you to convince you of my goodness personally, because that is a thing between me and my Maker; that is something as to how I stand with my Maker and as to how you stand with your Maker. That is not concerned with this issue, except and unless there are those of you who would be so good as to pray for the souls of some of UK. Rut the Lord gave His law, and in the Book of James they said so, that the rich should weep and howl for the miseries that had come upon them; and, therefore, it was written that when the rich hold goods they could not use and could not consume, you will inflict punishment on them, and nothing but days of woe ahead of them.

Then we have heard of the great Greek philosopher, Socrates, and the greater Greek philosopher, Plato, and we have read the dialogue between Plato and Socrates, in which one said that great riches brought on great poverty, and would be destructive of a country. Read what they said. Read what Plato said; that you must not let any one man be too poor, and you must not let any one man be too rich; that the same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man.

It is a very simple process of mathematics that you do not have to study, and that no one is going to discuss with you.

So that was the view of Socrates and Plato. That was the view of the English statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen like Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt, and even as late as Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Both of these men, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt, came out and said there had to be a decentralization of wealth, but neither one of them did anything about it. But, nevertheless, they recognized the principle. The fact that neither one of them ever did anything about it is their own problem that I am not undertaking to criticize; but had Mr. Hoover carried out what he says ought to be done, he would be retiring from the President's office, very probably, 8 years from now, instead of 1 year ago; and had Mr. Roosevelt proceeded along the lines that he stated were necessary for the decentralization of wealth, he would have gone, my friends, a long way already, and within a few months he would have probably reached a solution of all of the problems that afflict this country today.

But I wish to warn you now that nothing that has been done up to this date has taken one dime away from these big fortune-holders; they own just as much as they did, and probably a little bit more; they hold just as many of the debts of the common people as they ever held, and probably a little bit more; and unless we, my friends, are going to give the people of this country a fair shake of the dice, by which they will all get something out of the funds of this land, there is not a chance on the topside of this God's eternal earth by which we can rescue this country and rescue the people of this country.

It is necessary to save the government of the country, but is much more necessary to save the people of America. We love this country. We love this Government. It is a religion, I say. It is a kind of religion people have read of when women, in the name of religion, would take their infant babes and throw them into the burning flame, where they would be instantly devoured by the all-consuming fire, in days gone by; and there probably are some people of the world even today, who, in the name of religion, throw their own babes to destruction; but in the name of our good government, people today are seeing their own children hungry, tired, half-naked, lifting their tear-dimmed eyes into the sad faces of their fathers and mothers, who cannot give them food and clothing they both need, and which is necessary to sustain them, and that goes on day after day, and night after night, when day gets into darkness and blackness, knowing those children would arise in the morning without being fed, and probably go to bed at night without being fed.

Yet in the name of our Government, and all alone, those people undertake and strive as hard as they can to keep a good government alive, and how long they can stand that no one knows. If I were in their place tonight, the place where millions are, I hope that I would have what I might say—I cannot give you the word to express the kind of fortitude they have; that is the word—I hope that I might have the fortitude to praise and honor my Government that had allowed me here in this land, where there is too much to eat and too much to wear, to starve in order that a handful of men can have so much more than they can ever eat or they can ever wear.

Now, we have organized a society, and we call it "Share Our Wealth Society," a society with the motto "Every Man a King."

Every man a king, so there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial barons for a living. What do we propose by this society? We propose to limit the wealth of big men in the country. There is an average of $15,000 in wealth to every family in America. That is right here today.

We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon any man's family. We will not say we are going to try to guarantee any equality, or $15,000 to a family. No; but we do say that one third of the average is low enough for any one family to hold, that there should be a guarantee of a family wealth of around $5,000; enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences, and the opportunity to educate their children; a fair share of the income of this land thereafter to that family so there will be no such thing as merely the select to have those things, and so there will be no such thing as a family living in poverty and distress.

We have to limit fortunes. Our present plan is that we will allow no one man to own more that $50,000,000. We think that with that limit we will be able to carry out the balance of the program. It may be necessary that we limit it to less than $50,000,000. It may be necessary, in working out of the plans that no man's fortune would be more than $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. But be that as it may, it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.

Another thing we propose is old-age pension of $30 a month for everyone that is 60 years old. Now, we do not give this pension to a man making $1,000 a year, and we do not give it to him if he has $10,000 in property, but outside of that we do.

We will limit hours of work. There is not any necessity of having overproduction. I think all you have got to do, ladies and gentlemen, is just limit the hours of work to such an extent as people will work only so long as it is necessary to produce enough for all of the people to have what they need. Why, ladies and gentlemen, let us say that all of these labor-saving devices reduce hours down to where you do not have to work but 4 hours a day; that is enough for these people, and then praise be the name of the Lord, if it gets that good. Let it be good and not a curse, and then we will have 5 hours a day and 5 days a week-, or even less than that, and we might give a man a whole month off during a year, or give him 2 months; and we might do what other countries have seen fit to do, and what I did in Louisiana, by having schools by which adults could go back and learn the things that have been discovered since they went to school.

We will not have any trouble taking care of the agricultural situation. All you have to do is balance your production with your consumption. You simply have to abandon a particular crop that you have too much of, and all you have to do is store the surplus for the next year, and the Government will take it over.

When you have good crops in the area in which the crops that have been planted are sufficient for another year, put in your public works in the particular year when you do not need to raise any more, and by that means you get everybody employed. When the Government has enough of any particular crop to take care of all of the people, that will be all that is necessary; and in order to do all of this, our taxation is going to be to take the billion-dollar fortunes and strip them down to frying size, not to exceed $50,000,000, and if it is necessary to come to $10,000,000, we will come to $10,000,000. We have worked the proposition out to guarantee a limit upon property (and no man will own less than one-third the average), and guarantee a reduction of fortunes and a reduction of hours to spread wealth throughout this country. We would care for the old people above 60 and take them away from this thriving industry and give them a chance to enjoy the necessities and live in ease, and thereby lift from the market the labor which would probably create a surplus of commodities.

Those are the things we propose to do. "Every Man a King." Every man to eat when there is something to eat; all to wear something when there is something to wear. That makes us all a sovereign.

You cannot solve these things through these various and sundry alphabetical codes. You can have the N. R. A. and P. W. A. and C. W. A. and the U. U. G. and G. I. N. and any other kind of dad-gummed lettered code. You can wait until doomsday and see 25 more alphabets, but that is not going to solve this proposition. Why hide? Why quibble? You know what the trouble is. The man that says he does not know what the trouble is is just hiding his face to keep from seeing the sunlight.

God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is.

We had these great incomes in this country; but the farmer, who plowed from sunup to sundown, who labored here from sunup to sundown for 6 days a week, wound up at the end of the time with practically nothing.

And we ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in this program. That is a small matter. Suppose it does cost a billion dollars a year—that means that the money will be scattered throughout this country. We ought to pay them a bonus. We can do it. We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the N. R. A.

If the N. R. A. has done any good, I can put it all in my eye without having it hurt. All I can see that the N. R. A. has done is to put the little man out of business—the little merchant in his store, the little Italian that is running a fruit stand, or the Greek shoe-shining stand, who has to take hold of a code of 275 pages and study it with a spirit level and compass and looking-glass; he has to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to tell him what is in the code; and by the time he learns what the code is, he is in jail or out of business; and they have got a chain code system that has already put him out of business. The N. R. A. is not worth anything, and I said so when they put it through.

Now, my friends, we have got to hit the root with the ax. Centralized power in the hands of a few, with centralized credit in the hands of a few, is the trouble.

Get together in your community tonight or tomorrow and organize one of our Share Our Wealth Societies. If you do not understand it, write me and let me send you the platform; let me give you the proof of it.

This is Huey P. Long talking, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. Write me and let me send you the data on this proposition. Enroll with us. Let us make known to the people what we are going to do. I will send you a button, if I have got enough of them left. We have got a little button that some of our friends designed, with our message around the rim of the button, and in the center "Every Man a King." Many thousands of them are meeting through the United States, and every day we are getting hundreds and hundreds of letters. Share Our Wealth Societies are now being organized, and people have it within their power to relieve themselves from this terrible situation.

Look at what the Mayo brothers announced this week, these greatest scientists of all the world today, who are entitled to have more money than all the Morgans and the Rockefellers, or anyone else, and yet the Mayos turn back their big fortunes to be used for treating the sick, and said they did not want to lay up fortunes in this earth, but wanted to turn them back where they would do some good; but the other big capitalists are not willing to do that, are not willing to do what these men, 10 times more worthy, have already done, and it is going to take a law to require them to do it.

Organize your Share Our Wealth Society and get your people to meet with you, and make known your wishes to your Senators and Representatives in Congress.

Now, my friends, I am going to stop. I thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. I am having to talk under the auspices and by the grace and permission of the National Broadcasting System tonight, and they are letting me talk free. If I had the money, and I wish I had the money, I would like to talk to you more often on this line, but I have not got it, and I cannot expect these people to give it to me free except on some rare instance. But, my friends, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you, and I am writing to you, and I hope that you will get up and help in the work, because the resolutions and bills are before Congress, and we hope to have your help in getting together and organizing your Share Our Wealth Societies.

Now, that I have but a minute left, I want to say that I suppose my family is listening in on the radio in New Orleans, and I will say to my wife and three children that I am entirely well and hope to be home before many more days, and I hope they have listened to my speech tonight, and I wish them and all of their neighbors and friends everything good that may be had.

I thank you, my friends, for your kind attention, and I hope you will enroll with us, take care of your own work in the work of this Government, and share or help in our Share Our Wealth Societies.

I thank you.

(Yes, it is 2012...but does any of this sound familiar?)

[Milton]

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Cynique]

Huey Long, nicknamed "The King Fish", was a very controversial figure in U. S. History, who, incidentally was assassinated in 1935. As a southerner he never vigorously opposed segregation. As a populist he dismissed the NRA the brainchild of FDR who got this country back on its feet during the depression with a lot of government funded social programs, the most notable one being Social Security. Huey Long intended to run against Roosevelt at the time of his murder. "All the Kings Men" is the name of a movie which was based on a book about a fictional character who was based on Huey Long.

What's really interesting is that those who advocate spreading the wealth around, are hawking socialism in a country which owes its success to Capitalism, - as in free enterprise. America is, after all, the land of opportunity which has spawned legendary rags-to-riches success stories. Democracy is also the cornerstone of this great nation. But capitalism and democracy are why the USA is now in deep shit. It's all very ambiguous. Captialism has florished and democracy has become a vague concept. There is a great gap between the rich and the poor Institutionalized racism is alive and well in a nation where a black man was elected President.The constitution provides freedom from religion but America is considered a christian nation, and if many powerful groups had their way, they would turn it into a theocracy. Marathon wars are waged to maintain peace.

Everything looks good in writing and sounds great in words but once implementation in the hands of people becomes involved, then all the noble intent and grand ideas become corrupt and distorted. Utopia will never be achieved. The problem is, that although all men are created equal, some men grow to be smarter and more ruthless than others. They are driven by greed and a lust for power while nice guys finish last.

Huey Long is, in a way, echoing the ideas of Karl Marx. And President Obama's contentions coincide with those of Huey Long. Unfortunately, the chaos of "every-man-for-himself" is an easier and more natural way of life than the order and cooperation required to provide everybody with their fair share

Honesty is the best policy and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is what would make this a better world. It's so simple, yet so complicated. IMO.

[Waterstar]

Cynique said:

"Huey Long is, in a way, echoing the ideas of Karl Marx. And President Obama's contentions coincide with those of Huey Long. Unfortunately, the chaos of "every-man-for-himself" is an easier and more natural way of life than the order and cooperation required to provide everybody with their fair share"

Oh indeed. I agree in every way with this. I think the name Huey P Long can be remembered to in that that P is in the middle and so People, can we say, "politician"? Yes though. I feel that a in general, a politician is a politician is a politician. Most politicians have exactly what comes first in that word as what comes first in their priorities: politicians. However, let me tell you something. If I had a choice between Long and Obama, I do believe that Long would get my vote. I think that Long would have been more apt to do what it is that he said he wanted to do for people. I think that he would have risked pissing those who are for big business off to do what he said that he wanted to do for people. I believe that there are some really good things that Obama wants to do for people, but in my opinion, he spent the majority of his term caring too much about pissing the big business ppl off (who weren't going to like him one way or the other anyway).

As for Long never vigorously fighting against segregation, maybe he was on to something. lol Honestly, integration has probably set us back in many ways. It has probably made us take as many steps backward as it has made us take steps forward. I think equal rights and justice are always more important than integration. The latter does not automatically imply the former, as we can see even better than ever since President Obama's election.

Cynique said:

"As a populist he dismissed the NRA the brainchild of FDR who got this country back on its feet during the depression with a lot of government funded social programs, the most notable one being Social Security."

Yes, I see what you are saying, but I must say that Foot Draggin Roosevelt (FDR) wasn't really in a rush to oppose segregation vigorously, either. Plus, he was sure to consult with the negroes to maintain popularity in the negro world, but he did not rock the boat in regard to race too much either. Back on Long and Roosevelt though, the main reason that Long opposed FDR's efforts is because he felt that Roosevelt was not doing enough for the common man. Townsend was in that camp of those who opposed FDR's efforts for this reason. Social security actually started off as Townsend shares. FDR had opposition on the left from such people who felt that he was not doing enough for the people and opposition on the right from people who felt that he was doing too much, messin wit da money/social order of things too much. Something like what Obama is going through, but many, many, many more people liked and supported FDR. lol( Ppl can keep on thinking that it has nothing to do with race if they want to.) Who knows though? Perhaps if Obama has as many terms as FDR, maybe he'll eventually be able to get many of those things that he wants to do for people done. Who knows...

Cynique said:

"What's really interesting is that those who advocate spreading the wealth around, are hawking socialism in a country which owes its success to Capitalism, - as in free enterprise"

Yes, that is interesting, but what I think is even more interesting is that while it is popularly noted that America owes its success to capitalism/free enterprise, it is hardly ever noted that the basis of this blossoming of capitalism and free enterprise was derived from SLAVE labor, people who were abducted, rounded up and bred like cattle who made this country so wealthy. This is not a self made nation. This is a nation that was hijacked because it was inhabited by many, many nations of indigenous Americans when Christopher Columbus brought his pirate self over here. These are the makings of the American Dream. This is the foundation on which all American freedom stands. Capitalism and free enterprise has meant the good life for some and hell for others. To this day, far too few of us acknowledge how this place was made into what it is,forced labor and cheap labor. Heck, these people did not start from scratch and build this country into a superpower from the sweat of their brows. This exploitation continues, it is not a thing of the past.

Cynique said

"Honesty is the best policy and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is what would make this a better world"

Yes o. I agree completely and you know, I don't think that it's really that it's a matter of being complicated. It's a matter of a love of greed and ego in my humble opinion. We could change the direction of things by really investing in the minds of the children. We really could, but so many children (on both sides of the equation) are either directly or indirectly being trained to maintain the status quo.

Either way, though, this is not unlike anything else in this world in that it is all about cycles. Regardless of the resistance, regardless of the readiness or a lack thereof, when it is time for a cycle to end, it comes regardless of who is wants or is ready for it. It's kind of like having the perfect cookout only for the beautiful clear skies to break out of nowhere and for the rain to start pouring down. This new cycle will come in like so, just with more fire. It no business with the readiness of man/woman. The cycles will be regardless of public opinion/popular support.

[Cynique]

I wasn't defending FDR or capitalism. FDR was an aristocrat, and didn't even attempt to portray himself as a man of the people or a champion of racial equality. His wife Eleanor was the great liberal voice in that family and spoke out on her own. FDR, in fact, courted the southern segregationists in order to keep being re-elected. He was the consummate politician. However, the programs he put into place under the National Recovery Act did work, did help, and his masterstroke of looking the other way in order to bring this country into WWII certainly did what he intended this to do, which was to rev up the economy.

Huey Long was also first and foremost a politician, a glib snake-oil salesman who history has never really taken seriously, instead choosing to portray him as a demagogue. He promised pie-in-the-sky in order to appeal to the have-nots. Whether he could've delivered or even wanted to deliver on his promises once he gained the power of the presidency remained to be seen.

Capitalism is what it is, a dog-eat-dog opportunistic system that favors the strong and deprives the weak. Morality or altruism have no place in its tenets. Yes, America was built on the backs of its immigrants and slaves but it still rewarded those who were ingenuous enough to rise from the ranks. Capitalism did spawn industries and industry is what made America prosper. Socialism, as preached by Huey Long and others, has never worked. Large Russia and tiny Cuba are prime examples of how share-the-wealth governments morphed into failure. Socialized medicine is the only program that seems to work.

I agree that things go in cyles, as do many economists who predict that in the course of time, the gnarled situation in America will work itself out on its own. Obama was unlucky enough to enter the presidency on a "down" phase and good luck is the only thing that will rescue his presidency. He will either rise with a high tide or wash out with the ebb. In the meantime his inept advisors continue to stumble and bumble and make him look like a grinning optimist instead of a hard-nosed realist.

[Anonymous]

These are the makings of the American Dream. This is the foundation on which all American freedom stands. Capitalism and free enterprise has meant the good life for some and hell for others.

This reminds me of a short story I read for a philosophy class a few years ago called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin. The story was about a utopian town where the inhabitants remained perfectly content and happy as long as this one resident child suffered a living hell while chained and locked in a basement. It's been a while since I've read it, but that's what I remember most. The people knew about the child (it was the child's suffering that afforded them this fabulous life) and they were free to leave the town if they didn't like it, but they were not allowed to free/rescue the child. This story immediately popped in my head as I read this thread because essentially that's what was being described...several people suffering indescribable horrors so that a select group can prosper and live happily ever after. Those that don't like it are powerless to free "the child"...their only option is to leave. So sad.

[Waterstar]

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Fi real~

[Waterstar]

I wasn't defending FDR or capitalism. FDR was an aristocrat, and didn't even attempt to portray himself as a man of the people or a champion of racial equality. His wife Eleanor was the great liberal voice in that family and spoke out on her own. FDR, in fact, courted the southern segregationists in order to keep being re-elected. He was the consummate politician. However, the programs he put into place under the National Recovery Act did work, did help, and his masterstroke of looking the other way in order to bring this country into WWII certainly did what he intended this to do, which was to rev up the economy.

Huey Long was also first and foremost a politician, a glib snake-oil salesman who history has never really taken seriously, instead choosing to portray him as a demagogue. He promised pie-in-the-sky in order to appeal to the have-nots. Whether he could've delivered or even wanted to deliver on his promises once he gained the power of the presidency remained to be seen.

Capitalism is what it is, a dog-eat-dog opportunistic system that favors the strong and deprives the weak. Morality or altruism have no place in its tenets. Yes, America was built on the backs of its immigrants and slaves but it still rewarded those who were ingenuous enough to rise from the ranks. Capitalism did spawn industries and industry is what made America prosper. Socialism, as preached by Huey Long and others, has never worked. Large Russia and tiny Cuba are prime examples of how share-the-wealth governments morphed into failure. Socialized medicine is the only program that seems to work.

I agree that things go in cyles, as do many economists who predict that in the course of time, the gnarled situation in America will work itself out on its own. Obama was unlucky enough to enter the presidency on a "down" phase and good luck is the only thing that will rescue his presidency. He will either rise with a high tide or wash out with the ebb. In the meantime his inept advisors continue to stumble and bumble and make him look like a grinning optimist instead of a hard-nosed realist.

Yes, I agree. Huey Long, like almost every politician, was first and foremost a politician.

As for FDR, he came from a wealthy family, but his experience with polio was a life altering experience. It seems that it made him more compassionate and uch more concerned about the common man (but "common man" doesn't necessarily mean "common man regardless of race, creed, color, etc.") Oh yes indeed...and they've been revvin' eversince, haven't they? Always somebody somewhere who needs exploitin *d'oh* I meant savin via freedom and democracy.

Also, I don't know how Cuba is more of a failure than U.S. I suppose it depends heavily upon one's idea of "success".

As for Obama, in all fairness, I can say that there were some really wonderful things that he wanted to do, but he was the head... the head does not turn without the neck. Congress was the neck. However, this does not put him in the clear. Perhaps one of the main reasons that he will not get as much support from African American voters who voted for him before is because a vote for Obama has, for the last four years, turned out to be little more than a vote for right wing agenda. Don't get it twisted though. I don't get into all that wing stuff. Left wing or right wing, they belong to the same bird.

A vote for Romney might be a vote for big business, but at least there is the "might" factor with more room for the benefit of doubt. As for President Obama, on the other hand, some who think more globally know his track record and feel that a vote for Obama is a vote for imperialism.

In other news, why is the "duopoly" hardly questioned? How does democracy come even close to being fair when the system really just boils down to a two-party one? ("Today's Specials are doo-doo and urine. Which one would you like? Take your time and vote order when you're ready." Uh... .. I think I'll skip lunch.)

On another note, freedom isn't free; it costs folks like you and me:

[Cynique]

Well, when it comes to Cuba, anytime a socialistic society is run by a dictator, it can hardly be considered a success, especially when there is so little wealth to share that the people all live in various degrees of poverty, except of course for the ruling class.

You don't see any Americans trying to escape this country to go and live in Cuba, but Cuba has a lot of refugees who have sought a better life in America.

[Waterstar]

I suppose that mostly depends on what constitutes a dictator. What are the requirements for this title? If it is tyranny and disregard for the will of the people, when has America not had a dictator? It's just that in what is often considered a "dictatorship", the person considered a dictator is much easier to point out as opposed to being under a system in which one repressive/oppressive regime after another rules. It's harder to point fingers in the latter case, because one does not have enough fingers on his hand to point in this case. The system is often to blame and is yet blameless because it is inanimate. Though it is a system based upon the dominating will of the corrupt, who is so silly as to point fingers at something that cannot be physically seen? In such a system, the upholders of it are simply that and though they are animate, they "didn't make the rules" so they are blameless.

One man's hero is another man's pirate. Case in point: Christopher Columbus. In the same way, one man's liberator is another man's tyrant. Fidel Castro is a hero in the minds of some, a tyrant in the minds of others. I think it's time to look beyond the narrative that is but one in an anthology of this country's agenda oriented history. I am of the persuasion that it is high time we look beyond the demonization of certain leaders and ask why. Is it not odd that some of the biggest supporters of Batista are fiercely anti-Castro. Why is this? Many times when people her

e talk about Castro as this ruthless dictator, they are merely repeating lines from that ever present narrative that I mentioned.

Cynique said:

"You don't see any Americans trying to escape this country to go and live in Cuba, but Cuba has a lot of refugees who have sought a better life in America."

After her escape, Assata Shakur, who was a political prisoner here, was granted political asylum in Cuba by Fidel Castro. I think that perhaps many more would try to escape this country to go live in Cuba if the restrictions in reference to Cuba were not so firmly in place. Cuba has a lot of refugees who have sought a better life in America, true, but many of them are anti-Castro yet pro-Batista. America supported Batista's regime. Batista was not a 'dictator" to America because Batista was in a puppet position for American interests.

At any rate, the vast majority in America is overcome by a bombardment of stories from one anti-Castro perspective. Why not look for other sides sometimes?

Just as it is not often told that Fidel Castro was a lawyer, it is often not told that Che Guevara was a medical doctor... They would be considered humanitarians in societies in which profits are considered a poor substitute for the right to self-determination and human dignity. What really is freedom in a society in which one's heroes and villains are pre-selected for them?

The film featured interviews with:

Phillip Agee

Muhammad Ali

Harry Belafonte

Ramsey Clark

Angela Davis

Elián González

Nelson Mandela

Gabriel García Márquez

Ted Turner

Alice Walker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkNm7BWcOl0&feature=related

[Cynique]

Che Guevara is a much romanticized hero who was idolized by the counter culture movement in this country, but he's from Argentina. Great humanitarian that he may have had the potential to be, Castro did not have any problem consenting to allow Russia to erect missile launcing sites trained on this country so in case America got too frisky, the Soviets could blow this country to kingdom come. Luckily Krushev had second thoughts and changed his mind avoiding what could've turned into a nuclear war.

I don't know what else Castro could be called if he's not a dictator except maybe a king. As for comparing him to the leadership in this country, at least the Republicans and Democrates play musical chairs and take turns running things. Did anybody ever dare to oppose Fidel who ruled with an iron fist? Has he ever shared his power with anyone except his relatives???

I don't know about you, but if I had a choice between living in Cuba or America, I'd take this country because I like my amenities.