Thank you, Mr. Wei, for correcting me on Jack LaZebnik . How could I have
made such a glaring error? Now I remember where we last met in the last
life. "by the south side of the bridge at Ten-Shin". We paid then too " for
our songs and laughter". And we appreciated the intelligent men then also.
    On betrayal- I don't see why it surprises you that Pound thought the
Constitution was betrayed. He harped on this for years before he was
arrested and charged with treason. And as to the insanity plea-It was my
understanding that Pound was talked into it ,and that he wanted to go to
trial to challenge the indictment.
    Concerning money and war, Pound saw them inextricable linked. For
example, let us take the incident of Pound's sour experience with Nicholas
Butler, president of the Carnegie Peace Endowment, who won the Nobel Peace
Prize along with Jane Addams in 1931. Pound was angered by Butler because
Butler did not acknowledge the poet's suggested principal causes of war.
    1."Intense production and sale of munitions"
    2. "Overproduction and dumping, leading to trade rivalries and
irratations"
    3. "The intrigues of interested cliques" (1928)
So Butler's assistant Haskell answered with a nodding acknowledgement, not
to Pound's satisfaction however. As a result, Butler became the "bloated
crab" and the "muddle-headed sandbag" whose name would "stink to posterity
wherever kindly oblivion fails to efface..." The impetuous hothead (and on
this charge Pound IS guilty) who overreacts may do so but it does not mean
that he does not have a point to make. The above sound like good suggestions
to me. And if they were rejected, one has the right to ask why. But observe
the implied relation of money and war and think how we can see examples of
these causes even in our recent history. Does democracy have the means at
hand to correct these ills. " Ther died a myriad,..." We would hope so,
wouldn't we?
                            (to be continued)