I would like to start out. Can a moving from some of my impressions of living in the Indian Community and accepting a great many things in the in Indian Community as a given and in-kind develop? some of the experiences I had him moving out to a larger society and beginning to critically examine the value systems the structure of knowledge and the way that people do things. I think my experience is not untypical of other Indian people that growing up in reservation communities. You're very much aware of the Traditions your tribes, but you're also very aware. Of that outside world that keeps impinging on you. I think you're only Indians in audience. Look back that are Early Childhood years or simply to accept whatever comes up. show it. It's entirely consistent to follow tribal beliefs, but still thinks it's Santa Claus is coming and all of the other rate reading just symbols of the Western Civilization and I know growing up on Pine Ridge. We just kind of took it for granted to the formation came in from the outside that you know, it was probably something to it. It wasn't the real big deal. But there's already no inconsistencies. Whatever came in whatever people seem to be able to live with seem to be what made up the reality of the world. Leaving that reservation situation and then coming into educational institutions in the other world. Was really the first experience I had in understanding that people of Western European background. I had all kinds of funny ideas about who Indians were. I'm not talkin simply about the Bering Strait Theory, but the tendency of non-indians to look at Indian Societies in a cultural evolutionary sense and not dude say that with the proper amount of Education of the Indians couldn't move into a much higher civilized social state. In my first few years off the reservation dealing with non Indian educational institution. This seemed to be a rational thing to me because after all the white man had the technology they were at the time had won World War II and we're fighting other Wars all these things seem to be a part of reality. Until I began to very critically examine some of the things I was being taught in school. I think the field a geology was the first area. Do I really began to criticize in and look critically to White Man's tradition studying historical geology and having them till. All manner of chaos about how the world came to be. In particular explaining what fossils were the little animals would go across the muddy creek and after millions of years this continent would subside clay would come fill in these little Footprints millions of years later. The company would come back up again. Brush away the clay and there would be preserved footprint of the little animals in the scientist would get on their hands and knees and this is what the life was like. Now that's your group reservation setting went rabbit hunting. No the tracks don't. Wait for continence to subside within two or three weeks. Sometimes within 2 or 3 hours. Those tracks are gone and if if you want to Discover with the wildlife is on the reservation. You got to be pretty Keen Observer all the time. That was the first indication to me that the white man scientific structure wasn't quite up-to-date. I suppose was contracted by the fact that the train tracks always did stay there. So that was kind of a point on the white man's side. I don't have to I began to really get suspicious and over the years. I think when the Shaving Grace is is my life is a void believed in things and then a voice in trying to find out if they're really real. I've always had to dig down to and to find out what check the bases are there. Virgin Flight voted against Richard Nixon 1960 cuz I believed him I thought he really was that kind of person and I didn't like that kind of person and I found out that he was a truck. I was pretty happy because that meant he was in the great tradition of American presidents. I thought I could live with it. So I am being kind of naive. I've been exercising for a view toward the world in doing this. I see two distinct traditions. And I can't blame them as best. I can with the hopes that you'll see the Indian tradition that the great many people in this audience come from. And it is that as I see. Indian people in their tradition on their on this continent we're not talking about people that is particularly desirous of gaining control over the natural world. That was trying to make communities. You live a long time in different places in become. So in tune with those places that a special type of knowledge begins to look true to them. And as different types of very meaningful experiences occur, those experiences are passed down generation after generation so that when we talk of the oral tradition rip talking about the cumulative experiences of different communities at particular places. and the idea of chronological time is not particularly important and what's important is that people can look back on their history and Give you an accurate recounting of those events that were qualitatively different than impressed themselves upon those communities that are so important for those communities that generation after generation remembered them. neck type of history and tradition Then I think there's a cumulative effect of telling you who you are in relation to a particular place. And as the centuries pass the knowledge of the various events Niche people together. And so you have then a common Heritage and outlook on the world. I'm itching at the start because I think the Western European tradition is pretty much the opposite of that. That from a series of experience experiences and incidents Western European seem to want to pull some additional abstract principle out of their experiences and use it to explain the world. and number people in modern thought Alfred North Whitehead Phillips later Carl Jung a substantial number people have commented that this twist those experiences very very distinctly. It produces a type of abstract knowledge. And produces a set of conception which you would deal with the world. But I think in presenting that abstract knowledge that lifts you away from the context in which you live. and while we have the most Sophisticated and technological society that the planet has apparently ever seen. We look at it and social in human terms. We find it. That's Lance is the thing that drives us forward and makes a substantial number of us extremely unhappy with ourselves and continuing to probe into who we are into the meaning of life in leaders in many instances to further questions of meaninglessness instead of to some type of synthesis. Now when the two Traditions Collide is they have in American history. I think it's very important for the majority to understand what it is that the minority sees and what it is that their philosophy in system. Let me give you a specific example. It's a prison time one of the major concerns that we have. Deals with the proper use of land and resources. There's a national problem all groups are affected by it. If you stand within a Native American Natural philosophical tradition you talking about the experiences of your community in a particular place over a long. Of time. And you're talking about your concern for a particular River a particular Meadow a particular Groves of trees and particular Mountain. It's very difficult for you to abstract Beyond. That immediate environment that you're aware of. The nun Indian world comes in in attempts to talk to you about your concern for things. And they are such phrases as Indians love nature. The most Indians look at him and they don't understand what that means. You know, they supposed to pet a chipmunk or Embrace a tree or what? You know what's nature? Nature's a word and you know that the non-indian world uses to kind of describe something out there, but they never describing specific particular things out there. They're describing some type of materialistic existence. And Indians in the tempting to respond to this nature thing. I think we've been all confused and how do you communicate to people and we don't Lowe's trees. You we love our trees the ones that are right here and you we don't like animals, but we do love. Anna the problem of getting the communication of what we really mean over to the non-indian world isn't a mensch barrier. From long time. I think we blamed ourselves at being inarticulate that somehow we just can't expression. I think if we look at our own tradition and recognize that is a valid philosophical tradition. Then that enables us to look into the other person's tradition. And ask why those people look at the world in the manner that they do. And we have to look not in our own history, but back at the non-indian history and see what those people I talking about where they came from and how they got the strange ideas that they got. Robert Vela in the number of a number of other religious thinkers have started to identify the first Thousand Years BC as a particularly critical time in the development of the non-indian. Let me read a quote from his essay on religious evolution. He says a very massive fact of human religious history is the emergence in the first millennium. BC all across the new world the old world. At least in centers of high culture of the phenomenon of religious rejection of the world. Characterized by an extremely negative evaluation of man and society and the exaltation of another realm as alone true and infinitely valuable. And number of other writers have remarked that is what seems to occur early in prehistory. Is it the major Urban centers? Begin to look beyond their immediate environment. And they're all of a sudden saying reality is something up here and the sensory World everyday world we have to deal with. Is unreliable, if a memorable has no value something to be distrusted in this focus our attention to this other route. and that attitude then produces a degradation of Nature and elevation of patriarchal forms and degradation of women introduction to human slavery. the motivation for the large Urban civilizations to go out on imperialistic militaristic Ventures so that you have a series of imperialistic Wars emerging out of the urban centers with the intent and somebody might have seen the rerun of Alexander the Great with Richard Burton on National Television a few nights ago adult political leadership begins to think one person should and could dominate the known world now Call Raiden in looking at what they call primitive people and I would prefer to say Aboriginal people rather than primitive. looks at the major civilizations and make you basically the same analysis is Robert Vela then I think a much better when they let me give you his analysis. He says one of the fundamental traits of the major civilizations was there is Central instability the frequent socioeconomic prices through which they pass and the amazing Vitality. You've to somewhat contradictory fictions. the first was to the effect that there has never been any instability or change the second that stability existed eternally, but in the afterworld not in this as a corollary to the above, sometimes Express clearly and other times only implied there existed a third fiction to the effect that life on Earth was in significant incident replete with pain and suffering something to be hurried through. in articulating vamp in articulating that analysis of the urban early Urban societies a parallel with what he calls primitive societies what I would call the natural philosophical tradition He says those societies did not undergo socio-economic Tracy's they did not undergo constant political upheavals. They are able to deal effectively with the world around them and guarantee an amazing amount of integration in their society. In his preface in a skin asking himself a hypothetical question. What would he say are the three major characteristics of those primitive wherever original societies? Raiden says if one were asked to State briefly and succinctly what are the outstanding positive features of ever is most civilizations. I for one would have no hesitation in answering that there are 3 respect for the individual irrespective of age or sex the amazing degree of social and political integration achieved by them and the existence there of a concept of personal security which transcends all governmental forms and all tribal group interest and conflicts. So if we take our minds back to the first Millennium, I think they're the seeds are sown for the division of human beings into basically two camps in natural philosophical camp. That looks at it life experiences around it and simply develops a cumulative knowledge about the world. The other tradition than being an urban more sophisticated a tradition which goes through frequent socio-economic prices, which has current political upheaval as distinct characteristics of its history. In which integrated Society in patriarchal or masculine hierarchies? Adopt a very aggressive and militaristic view of the world. If you look at the source of the crises that currently face our society. You find that the goals that were shooting for are the major characteristics of the Aboriginal peoples the problems that were suffering are the major phenomenon of the urban civilizations. What is it that distinguishes those two from? 1000 BC on and how can we begin to heal at Bridge and at least give the natural philosophical tradition sufficient intellectual respect so they can be useful to us. And of the many routes in western civilization that we can trace I would like to trace just one because this lecture being on social ethics. I think we can move into that area. And that is I think in the religious tradition of the Hebrew and the philosophical tradition of the Greek. to begin to concentrate attention on the individual in the history of philosophy many you are aware that this comes down to the Occam's razor principle. You have to keep producing till you get the simplest element. Some point in a thousand BC and following Western people were convinced that the way to have knowledge about the world was to keep reducing all the information you got from it to you from that single thing, which would tell you whatever it was. Those you acquainted with the history of Western philosophy know that it fluctuates back and forth between Definitions of the world is ultimately mine definition to the world as ultimately matter. I think the problem lies in the belief that the human mind can reduce experiences to the point where you find that one single principal and then you turn around to that principle and you can explain all else. If you look at the natural philosophical tradition, there is never any indication that you can do that. The demand to analyze your experiences is very rapidly truncated in those communities in favor of Simply a retelling of the story a teaching emphasis that this has been a very important thing in our lives. This is why we do certain things from this is why we commemorate certain things or this is how we do things. But a determination within that tradition not to use the experiences to form some knowledge where we can gain control of the world. As we come to American history most of you I think are aware in the Constitutional documents this great concern to establish a social contract in which all individuals are equal. If you look at the history of constitutional law you find that white Anglo-Saxon male seem to always be a little more equal than any other groups that were talking about. So there is always an articulated unarticulated assumption within the American social contract that what we're talking about when we talk about the individual is really the well-educated affluent Anglo-Saxon mail. That's the model for forming the social contract. in almost every aspect of modern American intellectual life I think that particular model has been read capitulated over and over again. Those of you who are lawyers here knows that when we approach tort law, we're not really talking about what one individual did to another but we're balancing the activities of one individual against this abstraction called the reasonably prudent, man. Do they just only in our minds and we judge people not in their human capacity, but whether they were sufficiently prudent in a protein at Cross Crossroads to know that seven or eight different cars are going to come through. They're presenting a legal problem in each car. And the reasonably prudent man is not going to get in the middle of it. Are autonomous deal with an abstraction economic man, which briefly says that each one of us Unleashed with the only motivation of pure individual breed. The conglomerate is going to work together for the betterment of all of us. Early Economist assure us that we have no problem and we should not fear corporations because no person will ever work hard for a corporate any harder for Corporation than he would for himself. Forgetting of course that this is a nation of sheep in the easiest thing for a nation of sheep to do is to quickly find a boss and work harder for that Boston to Everwood for themselves. In religion, we I think also posit an abstract person in Protestant religion. This is often the person of Jesus who is attributed all of the good human characteristics in the bad human characteristics are kind of trying to decide where talk to live exemplary ethical and moral lives in kind of the vacuum of living up to the imitation of Christ. All these things, I think stenbeck that initial attitude that the world can be analyzed and understood if you concentrate solely on the individual person. With the natural philosophical tradition, you cannot form general rules for dealing with a real cuz you're always dealing with specific entities. Or maybe guidelines you understand with one species relationship maybe to another but it's not a knowledge that you can use to go out and manipulate the world. You must be constantly on guard to see that you are not violating is the young people say today the space or psychic energy of another species. If you go through the world of the awareness that certain types of relationships may be available to you then once you enter into those relationships you have duties and responsibilities. and the old saying that the Anthropologist used to call to boo, you pretend the Indians were unusually superstitious and had to finish certain activities were to boo would fall on them. Those things I think an Indian context are simply the requirement in a very mature understanding of Indian people and once having started a relationship with a species or people other than our own for the good of both species. We must continue their relationship until it is complete. Make me Andrew the other. Life-form if we truncate that relationship halfway through so there's no possibility than of using other life-forms is in an objective sense. And I think this is a very good Insight on the relationship of our species to other species a great many Studies have shown the animals like human beings get stupider than more domesticated. They are. and you don't need scientific studies for that look at the Congress and But that tradition then I think you recognize that you are among the two-legged and you have relationships with these other species. So your concern is never to analyze the world in terms of individual or single answer solution. But your responsibility then he is to recognize you are a member of a tribe A band or a family and all of you are responsible for the relationship of that group to all other groups. If we transpose those worldviews then into social ethics which are part of this lecture series. I think we can illustrate the impact of each approach. Any Western tradition? Begin to say we should love our neighbor as ourselves. You analyze that statement. What is the criteria for attributing worst your neighbor? It's your own value system. I love my neighbor like myself because in some senses. He is like Me In Those sensors. He isn't like me. Maybe I better educating beat it out of him or get rid of him. I think that has been the approach of the western mindset to people they don't understand. That is why the major inroads always in Indian communities have been religion and education. Somehow we can make Indians Worthy. If we change them to be almost exactly as we are our self. I think that at the in a long-run is extremely destructive. It infest all of our relationships United States today is particularly dangerous in the field of foreign policy. When we keep insisting on interpreting events in Asia in the Middle East as if they were prototypes of Patrick Henry John Adams and some of the heroes of our own pants. in the Indian natural philosophical tradition having established a sense of kinship with the person then you seem to include them in your group. And you accept them in a certain sense as part of your group. Numerous non-indians over the years have moved into Indian communities and be except and been accepted. Indians have been cheated defrauded fooled Swindell anything you can imagine mine on Indians that they took into their group because the Indian s think of accepting people in was so uncritical. It's able to look at people who the average non-indian would say. Hey stay away from those people the Indian that tribal Hospitality no come on in. They haven't done anything wrong to us yet. Angel let's bring him in the great deal of what's happened to us. I submit is our own fault for being so hospitable. But how do you deal with the ethics once you're inside the group? And it seems to me most Indian traditions. in failing to or refusing to adopt those generalize standards that Western Civilization has would look at and do look at that s a good loving someone as you would love yourself is the greatest of insanity. They would look at individual paper mache. Well, this is an older man older than myself. So he occupies the role of either father or grandfather to me. So there's a specific relationship I have with him. I have certain responsibilities. He has certain responsibilities. I have certain duties and he has certain duties. You look at a woman of a particular age and say she is in the approximate relationship of an amp to me. So I have these responsibilities and she has other responsibilities. I think Indian structure all of the personal Relationships by recognizing the characteristics of age sex and approximate relationship that people have to each other. This in many instances has been looked at by social science as a primitive inability to deal with human relation. I assume it is the most sophisticated way to deal with human relation. The very difficult thing that we have to deal with when we begin to articulate this view. Is it the non-indian world in dealing with only the category agent sex turns around and says we should have all different kinds of Liberation movements within our own Community which in some instances are going to level and already a sophisticated social situation. If you look at the Indian system in its totality, there is no chance for any outside two-legged Bean to move into that Network and not know immediately who he or she is and what responsibilities they have toward Society. If you move from the Indian context into the non-indian contacts and begin to judge your neighbor according to your own values, and then it seems to me you end up with one and identity crisis 2 with the psychic necessity to change to chase every fad that comes along because this might be the thing that finally gives you some stability. I think the ultimate manifestation of the two viewpoints. Is in the field of social ethics and is in the field of energy interpersonal relationship. And why can't we communicate the types of things we see and experience in the Indian Community to the non-indian majority and begin to get them to see? And submit to you the difficulty. Is it the non-indian community has become so fascinated with the fact that Their scientist? So fascinated with the fact that they're able to harness energies of nature in have quote power. So fascinated with the identity Quest that they're always on. If you begin to look at phenomenon through their mind only they don't incorporate either the elements of their hearts and emotions. They don't begin to incorporate a realistic knowledge of what they see when they look at the world. So ultimately when we deal with a 9 India majority many times were dealing with people who look right at situations and see something that no one else sees. I first made this accusation with respect to answer apologist, but then willing at this point to extend it to a great many other professions. Let me give you two instances both of them taken out of Indian political history. where a non-indian comes looks at an Indian Community Gets to know the people and then makes a statement that is wholly unrealistic was respected Indian and Indians and testifies only to the fact that he has been so well-trained in his own culture that he's now unable to look at the world in any sense and make any respect. And the person I like to quote a Senator Henry Dodge of Massachusetts who introduced the Dawes allotment Act 1887. Senator does in 1885 went down to visit the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma. He wanted to check the Indian economic social and political conditions to see if the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes should be allotted in their land sold. Those lands left left over after allotment should then be sold to White settlers after visiting the Creeks he came back and told the Lake Mohawk conference this He says they had Chief told us there was not a family in that whole nation that had Not A Home of its own. There was not a pauper in that nation and the nation did not owe a dollar it built its own capital and rebuild its own schools and its hospitals. Yet the defect of the system was apparent. They have got as far as they can go because they own their land in common. It is Henry George's system. And under that there is no Enterprise to make your home any better than that of your neighbors. There is no selfishness which is at the bottom of civilization. Tell this people will consent to give up their lands and divide them among their citizens. So they each can own the land. He cultivates. They will not make much more progress. Now what is Henry Dawes do he goes down and sees a society able to manage its people and resources so that it has no social problems and no economic problems. Which according to any political theory is the result you expect your produce after many Millennia of following the sophistications of your own mind and he says obviously these people have simply reached the bottom if they can't go any further because they have not divided their lands up and they do not have selfishness. I did not know until I ran across that quote that a balanced budget was a sign of a primitive Society. You might point that after Ronald Reagan when he comes by the campaign next year. The other citation that I would like to quote comes out of the lone wolf versus ex parte Crow dog case some of you may know the facts of the case, but I will go through them. Briefly this shoe signed a treaty in 1868 which guarantees that civil and criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed between Sioux Indians will remain the province of the Sioux Nation. In 1882 Protege medicine man at Rosebud kills spotted tail a chief who has been very favorably inclined toward the United States since the early 1860s. Codons relatives go to spotted Tail's Melodies In they make compensation the form of presents horses and a feed. In the feud is put to rest between the two families. Since spotted Tail's are very prominent Indian chiefs the newspapers learn that he's been killed by another Sue and the other Sue was not punished. A big outcry risers in her dog is indicted taken to Deadwood South Dakota held in jail and a federal jury conviction was a murder of spotted tail. The case is appealed on the basis that the federal court does not have jurisdiction over Crow dog, and he is released from jail to go home to 2. Make his apologies to his relatives. His execution date is set and it's a race between whether the Supreme Court will hold the case or whether spotted tail will return submit himself to the federal court be executed. Spotted tail Sho turbo Pro talk shows up the day. He said he would return to Deadwood in places himself under arrest again with the federal Marshal this act when being reported by newspapers is such a spectacular demonstration of Integrity that the public sympathy begins to switch the case goes to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court rules that the federal district court has no jurisdiction over Pro dog, and he's in is released to the rosebud reservation. In the Supreme Court decision for judges knowing this set of facts then try and describe why the Sioux Indian should not be under the federal court system. It says the federal court system tries them not by their peers nor by the customs of their people nor by the law of their land but by superiors of A different race, according to the law of a social state of which they have an imperfect conception, which is opposed to the tradition of their history to the habits of their lives into the strongest prejudicial of their Savage nature. Need I point out to you that the Indian punishment for this murder is compensation. The white punishment is to Hanging you describe the Indian compensation as an appeal to the Prejudice of a Savage nature. You describe capital punishment because it is white man's way as a demonstration of sophisticated and enlightened civilization. In the Supreme Court never seems to recognize what they're saying in those words in characterizing the more lofty and humane. Conclusion as being Savage and primitive describing the barbarity of capital punishment as the enlightened state to which all people must move. I think that this particular theme moving back and forth between the natural philosophical tradition and the tradition of Western European peoples. Is one day we can demonstrate in a number of areas, but I hope tonight. I've given you sufficient illustrations to begin to at least raise the question. What are we talkin about when we talk about different philosophical tradition? I think the thing that inhibits us at the present time from making real communication possible. Is that the present generation of non-indians is really standing in the position of Senator Henry Dawes in the Supreme Court, you're looking at phenomena in life and in the lives of minorities in this country. Through a particular type of eyeglasses which then tells them the conclusion of what they're going to see before they even look at the problem. And so the majority looks out. They look only to verify the fact there's a world out there, but I think the decisions already made of what the answer is. I have a curve that in almost every profession that I've dealt with. Like Henry Dawes many people can look at a perfectly functioning system. And say hey, there's all kinds of problems here because they've been out expecting to see problems and they're going to keep looking until they find problems. and know any behavior deviating from that Norm of I must love my neighbor as myself and my neighbor had better look something like me and ask something like me. Any deviation from that then I think becomes extremely suspect. I know they're great many of you in the audience tonight or active in civil liberties functions in Minnesota, which has a great tradition in civil liberties areas. You can see this in the cases that are first and reducer. Mention of the people establishing this lecture fighting for political rights of dissident peoples in the state of Minnesota. You can look in the 50s and almost all those cases dealing with symbolic protest the Communist cases Japanese internment cases and others all revolve about that principle. The question then is at what point are we able to reach a sufficient number of people in the non-indian community? Reach them in such a way. They begin to analyze that propensity of their own culture to reduce everything insofar as possible to one single proposition than to take that proposition turn around and look at the world and set up some type of structure to operate the world. If there's some way that we can move them away from the belief that reality is up there. And what goes on down here doesn't count. Move them on over and our tradition. if you look at people sitting next to you and you look at them in the manner that you have always looked at you is a moralist faithless individual with identical equal rights to yourself and maybe have a different political persuasion, but sufficiently like yourself, so that it election time. You can listen with pride to the slogan. It doesn't matter how you vote just saw your vote. And if you look at them again and see when there is a difference, they are a different sex. They are little older or a little younger and I as a person have a particular relationship responsibility to In one instance, I think we could very quickly pulled together a very good Society in the other instances. People are always going to be at arm's distance and only insofar as they closely resemble. Ourselves are we going to give them any respect or benefit? We are in a sense producing our own emotional clones with the type of attitude that we have towards people. I think that it's time we moved a great many people in this Society on over to that natural way of looking at things recognize that we're all parts of the community that we all have specific responsibilities toward each other that the only thing we can hope to transmitted from generation to generation are those very positive very traumatic things that have shaped us and made us what we are. I like to go thank you people for coming in this terrible blizzard. You went down as low as 33 degrees in Tucson this year and not so this is a blizzard to me outside, but the warmth of the reception. I deeply appreciate it. Thank you very much. I guess we're just a conference out there and they But they found uranium out in the Black Hills. I don't know. I'm trying to figure out how I could get the South Dakota state or that declared unconstitutional to get those guys back and territorial status. We could have martial law and some kind of Law & Order out there. So I am followed that I am fine with that situation. It seems to me and your view of the events of the past week that you know, they're really difficulties with this with this whole situation. I don't know what to suggest. I'm glad it happened while a nuclear engineer was President. So we did it first hand but I wouldn't Denver 14 years and then then about two weeks ago discovered that it was the most radioactive place on the planet other than Bikini Atoll. Is it legal to radium dump most of this century? I really don't know obviously, you know if we're not all scared to death about the radioactivity situation and you know what? I'm going to be good for people in South Dakota or Minnesota once those wind starts blowing. Buy undone, Arizona that you guys problem with her and you have a good Republican delegation now so you can handle handle that the American way. Well, I hit the answer questions like that cuz when I when I'm realistic. When people say oh my god with a pessimistic view of things. Let's look at who we are, you know where Americans she took Phil years ago safety know they're crazy. But he said it more politely when we've known about all these problems were faced you for 23 years and we don't have the collective will to do anything about them. Set Joe and you know, obviously we're going to destroy American society didn't seem any question about that. If you're really look in your own heart. Are we going to stop consuming know or we going to vote for intelligent leaders? No. You know, we're so isolated at this point. It would take a major disaster. Absolutely major to shake any sense of reality intuos. In that sense, of course, they're going to strip mine the West help. We lose that many in Fourth of July weekend the traffic accident. Music music to fold Fe running amok in America. We cannot stop it or apparently don't have the common wheel to stop it. One is if I don't do it somebody else is going to and don't bug me. I'm only doing my job. That's our attitude toward social problems. Human being stored everything. So they asked me is strip mining uranium going to hurt your friend's saying we're going to kill herself. And I think that's a realistic view point. But if you want me to say, oh no, no where there's some way out. Theoretically there's some way out let's look around at us. We're Americans. There's no way out for us because of who we are because we don't have the collective will to get up and make the changes. We don't have the guts to to say what kind of system is it when the corporations are making 26% profit when we're paying 13% interest on our homes and we all want to pretend if we don't get the oil companies have the profits they won't dig oil do they make breakfast food or published books? We're all hiding today behind Collective lies. We don't have the guts to get up and fit. That's a realistic analysis. You know, we're doomed once we going, sweetie. I just wish they'd raise the speed limit to 80 and let us see no go out in a Blazer car. Get it over faster. So if there any sane survivors of this mess things that omitting do better than we did. But I'm not going to tell you any lies cuz you've been through it on your lunch. She know what we are. You know, who we are. Let's not kid ourselves, you know. Now the bad news know any other questions though. I guess there's no more questions after that it okay. Thank you very much.