"Sixteen Tons" tells an old story----The arduous plight of the exploited manual laborer, or "Company Worker", with no Labor Union or leverage to balance the power of their rapacious employers.
VIDEO (Tennessee Ernie Ford version):
VIDEO (Johnny Cash version):
Merle Travis, the writer of "Sixteen Tons"
LYRICS: SIXTEEN TONS ========== Written by Merle Travis Some people say a man is made out of mud A poor man's made out of muscle and blood Muscle and blood and skin and bones A mind that's weak and a back that's strong You load sixteen tons, and what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul" You load sixteen tons, and what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain Fightin' and trouble are my middle name Raised in the Canebrake by an old mama lion Ain't no a high-toned woman make me walk the line You load sixteen tons, and what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store If you see me comin', better step aside A lot of men didn't, and a lot of men died With one fist of iron, and the other of steel If the right one don't get you then the left one will You load sixteen tons, and what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store ----Sixteen Tons Lyrics | MetroLyrics----
"Sixteen Tons" is possibly the best song ever written about the exploitation-oppression by distant, unreachable, wealthy corporate ownership, and the rough plight of the worker under an exploitive capitalist-corporate system. The song is not a self-conscious, academic/didactic work, but a huge, "evergreen" hit on the popular charts -- its original recorded version holding the #1 spot for months, and since performed by countless artists down though the years. Right from the start, the song clearly resonated with Americans, and with people all around the world. It is a classic by any standard. This simple song's relevance is timeless, and it stands up beautifully to any detailed analysis. Written by Merle Travis, "Sixteen Tons" is based on the life of coal-miners living in a rural area "company town". The ownership looks for workers, with "A mind that's weak and a back that's strong", who will work a hard, dangerous job, to produce wealth for them, while not having the will, or depth of understanding, to know much about, or question the system that exploits them.
The worker in the song has produced, with his strength and effort, in a dirty, scary, risk-filled environment, for his employers, the wealth of "sixteen tons" of coal, which will presumably be sold for far more profit than the miner's meagre wages. Certainly, the employers are pleased with the production ("boss said 'Well, a-bless my soul'"). But Ownership has all the leverage, and can pay what it wants, and impose other extractive policies as well. This worker's wages are not sufficient to keep him out of serious debt. The debt is so large for this hard-working man, that it seems it could even extend to the afterlife ("Saint Peter don't you call me..."). However, although this working man makes this single reference to a traditional Christian image, he rejects the more poetic/mystical vision of the world (man "made out of mud"). He sees the world as a very material place, where life is brutish, and for some, short ("Poor man's made out of muscle and blood"). And the load he carries is more than just his arduous labor, for relatively low pay. This is a physically-powerful and productive, but simple man. The worker's debts are magnified further by the fact that he is forced to buy essential goods and supplies from the same people who employ him, and at presumably very high (i.e. gouging) prices, that clearly eat-up the miner's small paycheck before he has even paid all his bills.
This hard, risk-filled work in the mine has made the miner physically strong and very tough. Due to the routine perils of his workplace, he is accustomed to danger. Also, he was born into hardship, and raised to be strong and tough by others (mother) who had rough lives as well. As a result, he also has a tendency to become angry and fight, perhaps more often than necessary ("Fightin' and trouble are my middle name"), and it is apparent he has a tendency to express his dissatisfaction with his life--not against his exploitive employers, but against other people on a similar societal level as himself, whom he can directly challenge in a physical fight. If he challenges his employers, he could lose his job, or worse, so that is not even considered an option. He may never even have met the mine-owners, who presumably live far away. He has much strength and ability to fight ("With one fist of iron...the left one will), maximized by his hard labor, but will probably never fight anyone who is not in a peer situation. As it is, he tends to fight, often devastatingly ("a lot of men died") over issues such as not being respected ("step aside") by a relative peer who likely suffers from the same exploitation. Ownership seems utterly safe and distant from his feelings of aggression/frustration, as well as his ability to fight and defeat others. This man will eventually wear-out and be replaced by another, similar person, though younger and "fresher", like a used or worn-out part in a big machine is replaced with a new one. And another person will then become the subject of the song, as a "new" cog in the big mechanism that grinds away the lives of some, while enriching, distant, unseen others. To ponder: In an age dominated by corporate-Capitalism, is "Sixteen Tons" actually the story of the TYPICAL American worker now, working hard for long hours and low-pay to produce wealth for others, while the workers themselves stay poor, powerless and constantly owing money? Maybe it should be our new American National Anthem? It would seem apt, given the nature of the lives of many millions, and still-increasing numbersof Americans these days, stuck in low-wage jobs and crushed by varied forms of debt.
The gritty, timeless reality of "Sixteen Tons" beats the awkward, superficial, war-glorifying "Star-Spangled Banner" by a country mile, in the opinion of this writer. Make that a "coal-country" mile.
The Election of 2016 is over. Nothing can change it. No more tears. No more whining, no more bitter accusations. This is not about sour grapes. This is a calm consideration of actual facts regarding this election. And note that not all of these facts were reported on in mainstream corporate media. But truthfully, these facts are disturbing, and highly worthy of sober consideration. And in some ways, the truth may disable at least some of the current disagreements between Progressives and Mainstream "Centrist" Democrats, over "who [supposedly]lost the election"? Because, the truth is, the election was rigged, but almost certainly not, at least principally, by Russia. Nope ---- the GOP and their operatives were able to get it done all, or at least mostly, by their little dedicated selves. The story has actually all been documented, but in many widely-spread pieces and sections, with much of the best data not reported on in corporate media, so not that many people have been able to add up the whole picture. I am going to bring them all together, on this Blog.
When you add up all factors, in entirety, it doesn't look like Hillary Clinton actually lost the 2016 election, in terms of the number of people who intended to vote for her, as clearly and consistently indicated in most polls before the election, as well as in the exit polls, versus the number of people who intended to vote for Trump. The difference? Nobody stopped anybody from voting in the many polls before the election, or the important exit-polls (which are barely reported on in corporate media). Clinton consistently won almost all of those, again and again, making the end result so confounding. ****But somebody was definitely stopping voters from votingfor Clinton, when it came to the actual election.**** Millions of those with INTENT to vote for Hillary were erased, "caged", unable to get to their polling place, or couldn't overcome the ID requirements in their very "red" state. And a mysterious (to statisticians), but recurring "red-shift" in the voting results looks like it finished the job, and with an almost surgical precision in the crucial swing states, thanks to "Black Box" [computer] voting and/or tabulation. Meanwhile, a far far smaller number of folks with INTENT to vote for Trump werecaged or erased from the rolls, or were unable to overcome ID requirements. Plus, the Trump voters were usually perfectly able to physically get to their polling place. WHY? Things were set-up to work exactly that way, well in advance of the election. The GOP made sure of that. Yet, Hillary still got 2.9 Million more popular votes nationwide. In addition, in late October, the FBI chipped-in, perhaps even at the inside urging of GOP operatives, although that is unknowable at this time. But in total, all 5 factors combined were devastating to the Clinton campaign. Here's what happened: 1. Chris Kobach's now well-documented GOP Interstate Cross-Check: Millions of Democratic Party voters, across more than half the states, were caged (i.e. had their names separated, and labeled not-eligible) and were unable to vote. This is the biggest single factor, as you will see below. 2. Strategic Closing of Polling Places in Democratic Party demographic zones in nearly all 'red" (i.e. GOP-controlled) states. Also, termination of early-voting in most GOP-controlled states, which many minorities and poor depend on, helped the GOP even more. Thousands more Dem votes were snuffed this way. These closings did not occur in GOP-heavy voting areas, only in Democratic Party ones. 3. Strict ID requirements, precisely designed to affect/limit poor and minority voters (read: Democratic Party voters) in (surprise!) GOP-controlled states, blocking many thousands of (mostly Dem) votes in each state. Democratic Party lawsuits stemmed some of the damage here, but only some. Thousands more votes per (GOP-controlled) state, were snuffed. 4. Comey's announcement on October 28, 11 days before the election, was unquestionably a factor as well, as polls show. Comey insisted later he stood by his quite speculative statement about the Weiner emails, even though there turned out to be nothing there, as Comey himself later admitted. But real damage had been done. The polls changedagainst Hillary-- Not decisive by itself, but this one event didn't have to be, since it is just one part of a "team" of factors combining their forces, into a malevolent political "perfect storm". Virtually all of it, planned.
5. On Election Day----A sneaky, but persistent "red-shift" (i.e. rightward trend) in final vote tallies away from (i.e. in direct opposition to) exit poll results, especially in the key swing states. Thousands of votes appear "flipped" during (computerized) tabulation, away from the Democrat and towards the Republican, which is very reminiscent of the Karl Rove era elections (2000/2004). Red shifts are nice in fashion ...
But the "Red-Sift" in elections is a disaster for the concept of Representative Government.
====== red-shift>=======>>> Before we get into the documentation, I need to say that this Blog represents a Progressive viewpoint, along the lines of Bernie Sanders/The New Deal/FDR, and his way of dealing with wealthy elites. The policies are clearly described in other posts. I am very aware of the current bitter arguments between the left/Progressive side of the Democratic Party, and the mainstream DNC-"Centrist" side of the Party. You know, the "Bernie" side is indignant about the shenanigans by DWS, Donna Brazile and others behind-the-scenes in the Party who "sabotaged" Bernie, and snubbed other Progressives at the Convention, etc. Meanwhile, the "centrist" side of the Party accuses Bernie voters of voting 3rd party or even staying home, depriving Hillary of the necessary votes in key states. Sure, this was probably a factor, to some small degree, but is way overrated, IMO. Most Bernie-supporters I know voted for Hillary out of fear of Trump, although were often unhappy about doing so. And I live in a state where Clinton was always way ahead, and folks could vote 3rd party without the danger of Trump taking the state. Still, most Bernie-voters I have communicated with went with Hillary. Online, I read constantly about Bernie-supporters who were going to "hold their nose and vote" for HC because Trump was just too scary. Extremely few Bernie-supporters actually ended-up voting for Trump, that is for damn sure. Maybe some Bernie-ites in swing states stayed home (not many), and certainly some in swing states did vote 3rd party. But I firmly believe these numbers were definitely NOT what made the difference. It is true, as some polls have shown, that some non-Progressive/working class voters who voted for Bernie in both "swing" and "red" states primaries did turn around and vote for Trump. They didn't vote for Hillary because her "centrism" is just not well-liked by working people, due to its strong corporate sympathies. So, after losing Bernie as an alternative, these normally non-progressive voters decided to take a chance and vote for Trump, since it appeared to them at the time that Trump was a candidate of change, albeit chaotic change. What does that show? It shows the appeal and popularity of Bernie Sanders' Democratic Socialist policies (single-payer healthcare, free college, job creation, etc) is still strong with The People, as was The New Deal of the Democratic Party's glory years. Hopefully, the Party will absorb this message in future campaigns against the GOP. There are lots of votes and victories waiting there, if the party truly wants to pursue them. Centrists are correct, however, about the negative effect of the Comey announcement 11 days prior to the election, which did actually cause a drop in the polls for HC, while Trump rose. The Comey announcement could be seen legitimately as a one of the big factors, and absolutely did do some damage, although it was probably not critical by itself, IMO. In addition, Centrists keep bringing up the Russia factor, which is extremely overrated, almost, but not quite, to the point of becoming an urban myth, IMO. Russia flipped zero votes in tabulation systems. No evidence for that at all. Email "hacks" (John Podesta's email account) by Russia, no matter what folks choose to believe, have not so far been verified by actual evidence. Even so, the Podesta emails' disclosures were no real surprise to politically sophisticated voters who know how dirty both parties' politics are, and are way overrated as a source of vote-loss for Clinton. The "Russian effect" did exist, but I am convinced after much research and cross-referencing that it had a much lesser effect than the 5 factors discussed here, which, in total, basically STOLE the election for the GOP. The election wasn't stolen by a foreign power, but by domestic operatives----All-American thieves who have done it before. As far as claims of mass-numbers of online trolls "hired by Russia" are concerned ... I myself have had a number of online encounters with these types over the last year or so, including some nasty "head-butts" with what I cane to strongly suspect were some of those hired Russian/Macedonian "professional trolls" mean't to twist peoples' minds and affect the election. Yeah, they were around, and still are, BTW, as nasty as ever. BUT ... Those A-holes changed very few minds, I can assure you. Not. A. Factor. I am utterly convinced, it was those 5 big factors listed above that were the difference. It just becomes more and more obvious the more you research it. The 5 factors' combined effect was overwhelming. The Shocking Truth: America did not actually intend to reject Hillary Clinton in November, as crazy as that may sound to some folks now.
A large number of her votes got effectively snuffed by the combination of GOP vote-erasure, geographical/demographic manipulations, and vote-caging. And then, ofcourse, there was Comey. So ... as far as blame for the election loss is concerned ... Both sides (Progressives and Centrists) need to back-off and CHILL. Because BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG. The election was rigged and stolen, but BY THE GOP, or operatives in support of the GOP and/or Conservative interests. You want to hate on somebody, hate on them. Hey, they're good at it. That's what they do. Nothing new here. They stole 2000 and 2004 as well. No kidding. Plus, just for another piece of the election-fraud picture, please note the famous GOP extreme-gerrymandering since 2010, which gives them a built-in advantage in The House Of Representatives.
GOP GERRYMANDERING PLAN IS DESTROYING OUR DEMOCRACY All cut from the same cloth, of fraud. Again, that's what the GOP does. But those, although related, are whole other stories. However, IMO, the GOP did steal the Presidency in 2016, and may well be able to do it again in the future. Once again, with links and detail, Here's how: #1.Interstate Cross-Check, reported on brilliantly by Greg Palast, which basically, scrubs voters off "eligible" lists for people having matching names in multiple states with criminals in other states. In other words, if someone with the same name as you in another state committed some crime, YOU lose your right to vote in your state (if it is GOP-controlled). All names were computer-program verified to be Democratic Party demographics by address, ethnicity and even by such details as the magazines and periodicals they subscribe to. Now that is precision.
Millions of votes were lost over a range of (always GOP-controlled) states.
Polling places become battleground in US voting rights fight - Reuters This process was especially blatant in Arizona, where long lines resulted from so many polling places being closed. "State Rep. Reginald Bolding, a Democrat and the only black member of the Legislature, said he visited four county polling places and said what he saw "was disheartening." "You saw individuals who were seniors, handicapped, you also saw individuals who had to spend their entire workday waiting in line to cast a vote," Bolding said. "And this was directly due to the county recorder's negligence in cutting the polling locations in Maricopa County from 200 to 60 locations." He said while he didn't suspect the efforts were intended to suppress turnout, combined with cuts in election funding and new laws passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature, he sees a pattern. "When you start to put all of these different voter-suppression mechanisms in a line, it's hard to believe that this is all coincidental," Bolding said.
"...the big change does coincide well with the release of the Comey letter [on Oct.28th]. Opinion swung toward Trump by 4 percentage points, and about half of this was a lasting change. This was larger than the victory margin in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin. Many factors went into this year’s Presidental race, but Comey’s letter appears to have been a critical factor in the home stretch." PRINCETON ELECTION CONSORTIUM--THE COMEY EFFECT THE COMEY LETTER PROBABLY COST HILLARY THE ELECTION
Polls Show Clinton Support Slipped After FBI Letter (Bloomberg) #5.The mysterious election day "Red-Shift" (cue creepy sci-Fi music), especially in swing states. Please note: The way exit polls work (around the entire world), is this ---- Generally,any variance between actual votes counted from exit polls that is over 1%,is a red flag in a close race and is calling out for investigation. BTW, landslide wins, for either candidate in a state, may have larger shifts and it is not considered a factor. Still, it's odd that Trump gained the most votes (by %) in a state he lost by a whopping 24%, but a GOP-controlled state (NJ) with an eager-to-please Buddy (Gov Christie), and a long-storied history of political shenanigans. But no worry, just a curiosity. In the chart below, note the nifty, almost-perfectly-reversed victory margins for Trump in those key swing states. For students of the 2004 Election, this is like deja vu.
But 2004 is another story. Just rest assured, "red shifts" have appeared before. A lot. Repeatedly, Trump won in those swing states by almost the same margins he was predicted by polls to lose.
BTW, please note that "blue shifts" in close races basically never happen. Not in any US election, ever. Seriously. This blank spot "anomaly" drives statisticians crazy. The disturbingly-consistent "Red-Sift" is reported on very soberly, here: VIDEO: 2016 VOTE RESULTS IN KANSAS SHOW MANIPULATION, ACCORDING TO UNIVERSITY STATISTICIAN ----
Surgical precision? "Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states [Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election." Myths About Clinton’s Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked Millions of UN-Counted Votes in 2016
