Home / Culture and Society / Disdain for Herman Cain and His Ilk

Disdain for Herman Cain and His Ilk

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

During the Great Depression, my grandfather, a native of Missouri, traveled from state to state for work. In 1937 he drove himself and his family from Kansas to California to get a job, which he did. He made it to California with Kansas air in the tires. This is significant for two reasons. One, tires rarely lasted that long back then. And two, it was the highlight of the entire venture because that’s how low expectations were.

Similarly low expectations are commonplace among the millions now looking for any job and any place to live. Unlike those who worked diligently to survive the Great Depression, the under- and unemployed today have also to contend with forking over an ever greater percentage of meager incomes to taxes while those few who incurred all this trouble in the first place cry foul at the idea of having to pay any taxes at all, much less as much as corporations paid just a couple of decades ago.

There is a reason there are a record number of college dropouts and graduates with a record amount of debt; there’s a reason for the record number of home foreclosures; there’s a reason why so many people are out of work – and none of it is because they did anything different than their parents and grandparents. It’s because the system in place now is not the system that was in place when their elders went to school, bought homes, secured work, or even opened a bank account.

Well-to-do politicians and corporate leaders over age 40 love to tout their hard work, college degrees (or their success sans degree), home ownership, and having held multiple jobs to get where they are today. What they don’t tout is how much easier it was, rather, how much less constraining it was for them to get all of that done. Many didn’t graduate with debt because tuitions weren’t through the roof and/or their parents could afford to pay their tuitions. Those who did borrow didn’t graduate with more interest on the debt than the debt itself, and the majority were able to pay off those loans in a timely manner because there were jobs available. Home ownership did not include the massive and convoluted debacle of fine print that has come to define the now-common predatory contracts. Holding three jobs was actually doable when today’s corporate leaders and hopeful/incumbent politicians were working their way up. To get those jobs they did not have to endure credit checks and “personality” tests (for which there are cheat codes), nor did they already have to have a job to get one. Even the banks, forever regarded as a necessary evil, were legally confined and could not bilk millions out of billions.

As a 49-year-old watching what my well-to-do peers have done and are doing, I’m shocked at the lack of gratitude they have (specifically for how they got to where they are) and the ease with which they financially execute one person after another as if this economic crisis was some kind of humane human safari. To hear Herman Cain tell it, those making less than a million a year are fair game, and they’ve only themselves to blame if he and his ilk are successful in picking off every last one of them.

The system that was in place when Herman Cain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Michelle Bachmann were going to school, buying homes, and looking for work is not in place today. When they were coming of age, many of the ways in which the consumer and student could get pounded in the ass were not only minimized by law, they were flat out socially unacceptable. Now, after decades of deregulation and under the guise of “too big to fail” and “free market,” the number of ways the consumer and student can be sodomized is so maxed out that soon corporations and our own government are going to have to look elsewhere for fresh meat. At what point do you suppose these two entities (corporation and government) will be the only ones left to destroy, and which one do you think will win? And will it be a win for the rest of us either way? History says no, and that’s why many have taken to the streets.

So what that the OWS protesters and their ilk have not as yet articulated their frustrations and demands in what corporate/government-speak? Had Howard Stern asked pointed questions of the peasants and laborers of the French Revolution as he did the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters, he’d have come away with just as many, “Uhhh…”s then as now. Too, let a stranger stick a microphone in anyone’s face and ask them about something very near and dear to them and see how many don’t start with “Uhhh…” – to include Howard “Uhhh” Stern himself. If the multi-national protest against the unholy marriage of corporation and government does last, we are now looking at the early days of a French Revolution-esque movement on a global scale.

Much like the French Revolution’s early opposition, Herman Cain asserts that those victimized by this economy are wrong to blame corporations for their troubles and that they should move their protest to the White House – the pinnacle of which he says is also free of blame: the government.

Heads up, Herman Cain and those like him: The French Revolution incurred a lot of dead among those who opposed the revolution, and unlike the French working class poor having only themselves to lean on for support, the “Occupy” movement is no longer confined to George Washington’s back yard. You can balk at what you think is an empty, short-lived, misguided threat; or you can prepare for the natural and logical consequences of a hard-working populace that is completely fed up.


Powered by

About Diana Hartman

Diana is a USMC (ret.) spouse, mother of three and a Wichita, Kansas native. She is back in the United States after 10 years in Germany. She is a contributing author to Holiday Writes. She hates liver & motivational speakers. She loves science & naps.
  • Diana.

    You might want to look at the following article on OWS by Christopher Hedges in Truthdig, as well as the comment thread.

    It’s a far more radical site than BC, populated with many veteran activists, many of them relating their first-hand experience with various occupation sites.

  • Clavos

    Oh, I am, zing, I am

  • Zingzing

    Of course, you could be a fool as well, clavos.

  • Clavos

    At least you admit that most republican voters are fools.

    True, I did, zing. But I wasn’t limiting it to just Republicans, which is why I chose Mencken’s quote.

    Most Americans are fools. Possibly because most were educated in public schools.

    Although it could be something in the water…

  • Zingzing

    Clavos, if you were any more despicable, you’d be a dickens character. I love you. At least you admit that most republican voters are fools. We’ll see if they truly are…

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s a given that the 9-9-9 plan will increase taxes on some 84 percent of households in the United States, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000 seeing their taxes increase 950 percent.

    Of course, Cain claims there’s a “secret fix” to help the poor. Trouble is, he hasn’t told anyone about it yet.

    Now would be a good time.

  • Some other folks have estimated it would bring in half the revenue of current tax law. At any rate, it’s bound to increase total taxes for the middle class and the working poor. That’s its purpose, after all. All flat taxes are designed to benefit the wealthy.

    But Herman Cain is not actually running for president. He’s running to increase his visibility and his income, just like Palin and Bachmann and Gingrich. And, like them, he is ridiculous.

  • Jordan Richardson

    The 9-9-9 plan wouldn’t change much with respect to revenue (and could actually draw less revenue) than current tax law, says the Tax Policy Center:

    “The Tax Policy Center estimates that, if fully phased in, the plan would raise about $2.55 trillion of revenues at 2013 levels of income and consumption, virtually the same amount that would be collected if current tax policy were in place that year (that is, if 2011 tax law, other than the payroll tax reduction, were extended). However, the plan would raise about $300 billion less revenue than would be raised by current tax law, under which most 2001-2010 tax cuts would have expired by 2013.”

    And if Cain’s tweaks go into place to “relieve” the burden from lower income families and small businesses, you can look forward to less revenue.

    Doesn’t sound like the brightest of ideas.

  • Clavos

    The rest of us will pay more. How do you think that will poll?

    “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

    H.L. Mencken

  • Zingzing

    Clavos: “I like the 9-9-9 plan; it’ll lower the hell out of my taxes.”

    You and 20% of Americans. The rest of us will pay more. How do you think that will poll?

  • Just in case your might want to look at my takes, Diana:

    (1) “The New York Autumn” (October 10);

    (2) “Protest, Protest Forever!” (Oct 25).

  • Clavos

    Herm can’t be any worse than ol’ “all 57 states…” Mr. Chauvinism: “You’re likeable enough, Hillary,” or how about “Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard.” Maybe if he had said that in “Austrian,” it would have sounded better. Or how about that tornado in Kansas, in which “…Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” (The actual death toll was 12. Yep, twelve.)

    They ALL make stupid mistakes, so it’s stupid to single one out for ridicule — it’ll just come back to haunt you.

    Just sayin’

    I like the 9-9-9 plan; it’ll lower the hell out of my taxes.

  • Now they have a cloud just for cuckoos???

    Yes, it’s Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan, and his Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan-stan foreign policy agenda and his stupefying new video ad.

    There, I put us back on topic for a moment too.

  • Clavos

    Into cloud cuckoo land, you mean?

    WOW! Modern technology never ceases to amaze!

    Now they have a cloud just for cuckoos???

  • zingzing

    seriously, i just paused the two videos that were playing and there were still at least 3 audio sources of annoyance going on.

  • zingzing


    [putting my consumer cap on] i know blogcritics makes its loot from ads, and i know audio/video ads bring in more money for the site. but when you have multiple audio/video ads autoplaying simultaneously, not only to you piss off your advertisers, you piss off the people who come to your site. autoplay is bad enough, but having multiple ones going at the same time… well, actually, that’s easier to ignore. but i think blogcritics should really think about its policies on autoplay advertising.

    it’s fucking annoying and a detriment to the site.

  • [edit]

    As to “cuckoo land,” no, I wasn’t being that facetious. But I do live in a cocoon of sorts, have for three years and counting, and BC, for better or worse, stands for a kind of freedom.

    Nuff said.

  • It’d really be refreshing if on occasion you could rise above it.

    Into cloud cuckoo land, you mean?

  • Yep.

    But you don’t really think I worry about typos, do you know?

  • zingzing

    “Hadn’t arrive.”

    conjugate, roger! heh. not a good time for typos.


  • But then again, Dreadful, you’re only displaying the herd instinct.

    It’d really be refreshing if on occasion you could rise above it.

  • Hilarious.

  • If you really have a love affair with English, you ought to know that it is secretly dating someone else due to your abuse of it.

    Quote of the Week.

    And it’s only Monday!

  • I thought you knew my fancy.

  • zingzing

    well, if that’s how you view it, just know you should use it when it would be helpful, not when it would lead to misunderstandings.

  • Not an illegitimate move insofar as philosophy is concerned, the gist of the Socratic method. But in any case, you can access my email via the url (top navigation bar, extreme right); the server is the same, and so is the last name followed by a letter “z,” one string, all lower case.

  • zingzing

    “Of course I understood your meaning; simply disagreed with it and supplanted it with my own. An illegitimate move, you say?”

    yes, an illegitimate move. it’s what makes talking with you so difficult. and it reduces conversations to just this sort of thing. i wish you would stop it. it’s really annoying. you should respond to what people say, not whatever tickles your fancy. i mean, i could respond to you in kind, and i’m sure the conversation would get very psychedelic. but it’s ultimately meaningless.

    “On a lighter note, however, I believe I have two interesting pieces of literary criticism, one on The Iceman Cometh” and the journey …; the other, on history of the novel and Beckett’s minimalism.”

    send away. my first published bit of literary criticism was on beckett (and berkeley) as well. i’m afraid it’s lost to time and an ex-girlfriend who never gave me my notebooks back. last i saw of her was a mugshot after she got pulled for drunk driving.

  • Chris, I don’t intend to be polluting Diana’s rather poignant article with this BS going on between you and me, so post whatever you will but count on me not to respond. I’m signing off insofar as you are concerned.

    I trust I’m making myself clear enough even for you. And see you on some other thread in a distant future.

  • Roger, you’re just babbling and contradicting yourself now; please stop before you make a complete dork of yourself – again!

  • troll

    troll – I don’t eat pizza!

    then there’d be little reason for you to be in the pizza working group I guess…you’ll have to practice consensus building using some other decision

  • Chris, I’ve told you before what I think of your opinion, so we needn’t go there. But you do of course know that whatever you think about me, the feeling is mutual.

  • Also, I wouldn’t go accusing other people of being tone deaf if I were you – unless you’re looking in a mirror. You really are far more ego than substance, Roger, although I’m sure you’ll not pause to consider that possibility. I think it is because of all the word wanking you call philosophising.

  • Roger, re your #91, the only smart aleck part of my response to you was the closing line, the rest was all literal – but you keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about your many inadequacies.

    If you really have a love affair with English, you ought to know that it is secretly dating someone else due to your abuse of it.

    Personally, I find your thinking woolly and your use of language as imprecise as your typing. How you come to believe that you have some kind of intellectual ability or discipline I truly struggle to comprehend.

    troll – I don’t eat pizza!

  • It’s not my fault you don’t bite.

    You know what they say about the horse and water …

  • Fine, but you’ll be having fantasy conversations with yourself then. This kind of magical-thinking BS has little or nothing to do with the exchange of ideas between reasonable, intelligent humans.

  • What has supplanting one meaning for another got to do with making a mistake, Handy? It’s a common philosophical move, and both you and zing have been here long enough to know that I do do that most of the times. That’s what I was trained to do and it’s second nature by now.

    Of course I make mistakes and mistype more often than I want to, but so what. Zing knows enough about literary theory to know about (mis)readings of texts as an important tool of analysis and pushing the discussion forward, so he isn’t that naive.

    Tell you what, Handy, try to express yourself in a multi-textured kind of way, do you know what I’m getting at? and you’ll find far greater riches in any conversation, you’ll find great deals of wealth to mine.

    Taking zing, or you sometimes, at your intended meanings, literally and at face value, is just boring.

  • According to Roger, he never makes a mistake, never misspeaks or mistypes English, never misinterprets others’ writings. He is Mr. Perfect, and he makes his own rules. The rest of us have to abide by these rules, whether they make sense or not, or we will pay the consequences. We must beware.

  • Clarification: it was my #63 that wasn’t a joke, not my #67. I disappeared up my own scroll bar there for a moment.

  • Of course I understood your meaning; simply disagreed with it and supplanted it with my own. An illegitimate move, you say?”
    Again, I disagree.

    On a lighter note, however, I believe I have two interesting pieces of literary criticism, one on The Iceman Cometh” and the journey …; the other, on history of the novel and Beckett’s minimalism.

    The two themes sort of intertwine and I argue that O’Neill, especially in the Iceman, serves as an antidote to Beckett’s reductionism.

    I’d share it with you if you like.

  • zingzing

    “So what is it that you’re missing?”

    you understanding what was meant. or at least responding to what was said rather than whatever you read it as. “private affair” means your use of the language is something you understand alone, not anything about a love affair with the language.

    you’ve often said you “read” things however you want, even if it ends up being wrong. you can have your fun, but it has very often been detrimental to the discussion. either you just don’t get it, or you purposefully derail the discussion for unknowable reasons.

  • Thanks for providing a list of credentials, they are impressive, but I would be more impressed by your performance while in office.

    Did I suggest the word “private” isn’t important? In fact I underscored its importance by providing the analogy.

    So what is it that you’re missing?

  • zingzing

    sigh, roger. that’s not what i meant at all. the word “private” is very important.

    and you presume a lot, don’t you? i’m an english major if you’ll recall. spent a long time concentrating on irish modernism, then shakespeare, but am now into american stuff. spent several hours over the weekend restructuring fitzgerald’s “tender is the night” because i realized that i bought the 1951 version rather than the 1934 original, which completely messes with the temporal structure. it was incredibly frustrating.

  • Yes, it is a private affair, zing — I do have a love affair with English, and you should too. Don’t know what you’re missing!

  • zingzing

    “The “I presume” phrase need not always function as expression of actual presumption but oftentimes, as a polite form of address.”

    erm, that doesn’t make much of a difference in the sentence. could you tell me how you think it does?

    “I’ve told you before, either clean up your ears or put on your reading glasses, because you’re tone-deaf insofar as English is concerned.”

    you gotta put some of it on yourself, roger. your use of english seems to be a private affair at times. the amount of times you’ve managed to screw up what people say would suggest you should turn this criticism upon yourself. i think you deserve it more than i, certainly.

  • Well, Dreadful, you had better straighten in out with Chis. Don’t follow football that much, although BBC 3, I believe, has a good football talk-show. They were covering the OWS protest in London, which is how I found out.

  • #96 directed at #88.

  • @ you can always appeal to the highest court in the land …

  • It wasn’t a joke.

  • unoccupier troll


    if you guys had 25 minutes do you think that you could come to consensus about what kind of virtual pizza to order?

    give it a try sometime

  • “Additionally, the Doc’s #67 was a joke.”

    As though I didn’t know …

  • @89

    I was only extending Chris the benefit of the doubt. The “I presume” phrase need not always function as expression of actual presumption but oftentimes, as a polite form of address. I’ve told you before, either clean up your ears or put on your reading glasses, because you’re tone-deaf insofar as English is concerned.

    And since Chris disavowed me of my innocently phrased presumption, I’d say he has a problem if he worries about what many/some/few — pick your own qualifier, the one you’re most comfortable with — people think. (Yes, he said “concern,” but I twisted his words on purpose.)

    There, fixed it for both of you.

  • All smart-aleck type of remarks Chris, the kind you well know you excel at, so no, I’m not even try to match you in this contest. You win hands-down.

  • Roger, in response to your #77:- Evidently you need a lot of practice then, because you are clearly not very good at it.

    Moving on, no, “riddled with errors” isn’t code for anything; I try to avoid coded statements as I find them largely pointless most of the time.

    And yes, unlike you, I care deeply what people think.

    So, wrong three times out of three, basically.

    Additionally, the Doc’s #67 was a joke.

    Finally, in response to your #87, a slight edit is needed; “Must improve my skills of communicating”. There, fixed it for you…

  • Zingzing

    Roger: “Correct, Dreadful, but I wasn’t arguing I’m the exclusive judge of it.”

    Nobody was, that’s just you putting word’s in another’s mouth again. But you are a poor judge of reality, seems to me.

    “I presume you share the same stance and don’t worry what other people think”

    Well, there’s you go.

  • troll

    re #86 unoccupy albuquerque faces another critical moment tomorrow when unm has to decide whether or not to reissue a permit for the park

    I don’t know that we have been able to develop enough community commitment yet to sustain a protest based on intransigent civil disobedience (which will be required sooner or later)

    …and I doubt that the courts will allow me to use the handle

  • Which just occurs to me. Must improve my skills of communicating via a code. It might work on analogy with a mosquito repellent.

  • Clever handle, BTW, but how long will you be able to wear it?

  • That’s what Mister F would say, since politics has to do with the body, and the more bodies, the merrier.

  • unoccupier troll

    ps – every protest site worldwide needs boots-on-the-ground and material support

  • t

    ya think?

  • Splendid idea. Ironically, a trace of disdain is at work even on the part of some of the BC commentariat.

    Are they privileged, too?

  • tro ll

    …another item that folks might focus on when thinking about and researching ows is how each ‘occupy’ (the albq GA based on the wisdom of the indigenous protesters in opposition to the ironic use of the word ‘occupy’ has renamed our protest unoccupy albuquerque even at the risk of splitting the movement) handles the problems regularly faced by the homeless and other members of the lowest cast w/in the ‘contact zone’

    look closely and don’t trust the msm take

    based on this thread I’m considering taking a sign that reads ‘disdain is an attitude of privilege’ to the curb…what do you think?

  • The link to Anarcissie’s article, Cindy.

  • @67

    That explains it all, Dreadful.

  • … loose any sleep …

  • @63

    Correct, Dreadful, but I wasn’t arguing I’m the exclusive judge of it.


    (1) That wasn’t the import of the argument, Chris, so let me rephrase it: working (on something) is better than not working at all, because, as they say, practice makes perfect. As a sub-point, ideas, too, are fruits of labor;

    (2) “Riddled with errors” is your code for saying you disagree and/or remain unconvinced. That’s quire all right with me. My job stops with presenting the argument. Convincing anyone lies beyond my area of expertise.

    (3) I don’t any sleep on account of whether some or many agree with me, which is how it should be. I presume you share the same stance and don’t worry what other people think.

  • Clavos


    The rise in food costs is artificial while the cost to hungry people is real…

    At least here in the States, it’s not entirely artificial; a significant portion of the rise in domestic food costs is due to the incredibly stupid and pig headed idea (sought by the farming lobbies) to dedicate a substantial portion of the nation’s corn crop to producing ethanol.

    Crony capitalism at its worst.

  • Enjoyed reading your article, Diana.

  • Archie, missed your response to my question earlier but thanks for a very thoughtful enunciation of where you stand, rather than the flamethrowing you’re more prone to.

    I do think that by focussing dismissively on the “loudmouths” you’re missing that most of the protesters are ordinary Joes and Jills just like you – which is actually a message in itself.

    And in fact, your description of the way you think welfare should be run is pretty close to the way it has been run since the Clinton-enacted reforms of 1997.

  • as for Cain comments at least he has a plan. Everything evolves including candidates cum contenders like Cain. It seems that only the dinosaur tax code does not evolve.

    When I would look at the tax tables and glance at the 24K listing I thought wow why can’t a person who makes around 20K not pay taxes? That’s ridiculous. Then I went looking for and finding lots of legal loopholes until I got my taxes down to nothing. So I am one of the folks who don’t pay taxes but one reason is because for a long time I put lots of salary into 403s so I would not have to pay taxes on it.

    The feds keep your money for nearly a year and they don’t pay interest to you. therefore you are paying taxes to the fed in the form of interest even if you get all
    your money back.

    Finally, found 11 cents on the ground while walking and that’s more than I got in interest on one savings account. In my largest accounts got a whole damn dollar!

    The banks are fleecing us.

  • John, obviously it has been co-opted. I know that is how it’s used. Just goes to show you anything attached to blackness gets blacklisted.

    I don’t deny that’s the dictionary def but that’s not what it started out according to the author of Tom’s Cabin with a black man hero. Think about it whites would not be too happy with a black Moses who led blacks out of slavery. Hence Uncle Tom, or maybe it just sounds like a turncoat.

    Same to you don’t take my comment personal just an observation.

  • Roger,

    There is something wrong with the pagination here. Can you give me a link to Anarcissie’s article?

  • Arch Conservative

    “Roger, just because you are working hard on your “ideas and thought processes” doesn’t mean that they are effective or persuasive.”

    Half the time his “ideas and thought processes” are so personalized and convoluted that no one has a clue what he’s talking about.

  • Oops, 28% not 18%, in that last sentence.

  • Interesting poll quoted on Chris Hayes’s very wonderful “Up” show on MSNBC. [Hayes is a liberal who is very infatuated with OWS. He also has great guests and real conversation. Watch the show!]

    Anyhow, the pollster asked OWS folks:
    “What should OWS achieve?”

    Here are the top 5 answers:

    35%: Influence the Dem. party as the Tea Party influenced the GOP.

    11%: Break the two-party duopoly.

    9%: Engage/mobilize progressives.

    9%: Promote a national conversation.

    8%: Not sure.

    Just food for thought/discussion. [That would leave 18% who gave a variety of other answers.]

  • Public service announcement: go easy on Chris this evening. He may be in a dangerous mood due to this thing that happened earlier.

  • Thought so, zing. My wife just got one and we still haven’t figured out how to switch off the auto-correct feature.

    My wife’s name has a male version, and her iPad’s favourite trick is to helpfully insert said male name when she tries to type out her email address.

  • zingzing

    you guessed it, doc. i don’t really like the thing. it’s got some annoying tendencies and limitations. of course, i can take it to the toilet, so that’s nice.

  • Roger, just because you are working hard on your “ideas and thought processes” doesn’t mean that they are effective or persuasive.

    I think many here find your ideas and passions as well constructed as your comments, which is to say wildly inconsistent and riddled with errors…

  • Since when you are the judge of what’s reality, zing?

    Since the day he was born, Roger, just like all of us.

  • zing, glad to see you fixed your disturbing recent tendency to capitalize the beginnings of your sentences.

    Did you pick up an iPad? Or did the fingers you bit off years ago grow back?

  • zingzing

    “Since when you are the judge of what’s reality, zing?”

    i am a judge of what’s reality, as much as you are, or anyone else. which “reality” is closer to your “reality,” roger: that ows is all about the end of gov’t, democracy and capitalism as we know it, or that it’s a diverse group of people, with many opinions, but united in their disgust with corporate greed and its lack of accountability?

    “And of course I am presenting my understanding of what I see and what the movement hopefully represents…”

    your “understanding” seems to be nothing more than what you hope it is. there may be elements of your beliefs in the ows movement, but it is not the totality. if you would step back and be objective, you would see that.

    but you don’t want to be objective and recognize reality, it seems. you can have your hopes, but you aren’t really allowed to ascribe them to other people, and that’s what you’re doing. if you want “intelligent conversation,” stop putting words in mouths that haven’t uttered them. that seems to be your tactic in “conversations” around here, and now you’re doing it when talking about what goes on in the real world. it’s incredibly frustrating and frankly, a little disturbing.

  • I appear to be shooting from the hip, Handy, but believe me, I work hard on my ideas and thought processes. In fact, since I’m not working and don’t have to really, that’s what I do all day and nights too.

    Of course we’re on this thread and I’m not about to shirk any good debate, never have and never will. But what I say here is only a condensed and sketchy form of my articles on the subject, so do understand I don’t want to be repeating myself over and over again.

    And while you at it, give Anarcissie’s piece a try. Who knows, you may find it illuminating.

  • Roger, I did read that a few days ago, thank you. I am quite taken with Sigmar Gabriel’s idea of splitting commercial and investment banking. I’m not sure (read: educated enough to say) I am okay with his proposed method, but the idea itself I like.

    I also think the futures markets should be regulated the way they were years ago. The rise in food costs is artificial while the cost to hungry people is real, and it’s caused primarily by investors who have never stepped foot in a corn or wheat field, is horseshit.

  • We are speaking on this thread; I was responding to your comments on this thread. Then you complain that I haven’t read an older article you wrote. Your articles have typically been ponderous and unreadable, but I’ll give your ‘Autumn’ article a look.

    PS You ‘shoot from the hip’ more than anyone else at BC. And you know it. So it’s kind of a hollow accusation.

    Your way of discussing something is to dismiss and insult those who differ with you…not to have a conversation with them. It’s rude and purposeless. And this has been pointed out by many others on here many times.

  • Here it is, Diana. I tend to agree with the general thrust, but hope of course for the better. You first-hand observations would be appreciated.

    As per the rest of your comment, I know exactly what you mean. Even though I lived in the states through most of my life, I’ve never quite shed the perspective of “an outsider looking in,” as it were. The same goes for Clavos.

    It is a definite advantage.

  • The reason I asked, Diana, I looked at the Der Spiegel coverage of the movement — there was a very interesting piece on the prospects of OWS, global edition, in Germany. I should find the link and will repost it here. You should find it interesting.

    It goes without saying that the German people, speaking generally of course, are much more attuned to events political and economic than the Americans are — if only because they haven’t quite recovered yet from the horrors of the war, and sense of guilt perhaps.

  • I present my views with force and conviction, Handy. Don’t you? Or again, are you going to just trying to nd fault with that.

    But really, my tone has got nothing to do with it. And as to content, we are not really discussing that, are we?

    Have you read Anarcissie’s analysis of OWS, or my own article on the subject, “The New York Autumn.” I present my case and so does she. So come again after you’re a little bit more acquainted with my argument, so perhaps we can have a conversation, but surely don’t expect me to be repeating myself just because you’re too lazy to read either piece and just like zing, would rather shoot from the hip.

    And I’m not being disrespectful here, just a bit annoyed with your gall, wanting something for nothing. Do the work and we’ll talk, so yes, you have to meet me on my grounds and my thread.

  • Roger, in answer to your question (#19), yes I still live in Germany and yes it has affected my perspective in that I am that much more aware of what I do and do not want from my government. More than that, though, I am more aware of what I’d like to see out of my fellow citizens, specifically more social pressure to do the right thing with regard to others – from the poorest to the richest, from the unemployed to the always employed.

    I feel more disheartened than anything else about the way Americans treat each other. Individually and in small groups it’s fine, but on any kind of scale, groups erect walls and almost dare others to scale them while shooting fiery arrows outward. The “Occupy” movement’s biggest draw is that it is bringing people out from behind those walls; not just in America but in other countries as well and in solidarity with Americans. If the least thing that comes out of this is a healthier regard for others, good for all of us. And if that is in fact all that comes of it — and let’s assume for a moment that it is — shame on everyone presently shitting all over it.

  • These things that “go without saying” are not reflected in either the tone or the content of your comments here, Roger.

  • @ 50

    Since when you are the judge of what’s reality, zing?

    Furthermore, if I’m claiming things that simply aren’t true, you are merely asserting that I’m so doing — hardly a counter-argument.

    Of course there are different voices both within the OWS movement as well as without, a banal observation at that. And of course I am presenting my understanding of what I see and what the movement hopefully represents — this, too, should go without saying, except when dealing with exceptionally obtuse people.

    So your point exactly is what?

    I should try to be more informed, zing, if I were you, especially when you speak from the stance an an injured party. I does you no credit. Have you looked at least at Anarcissie’s article I linked to? I bet you haven’t, or you would be discussing this subject with me in certain concrete terms and much greater detail instead of the usual dose of generalities, couched besides in all manner of personal likes and dislikes. So why don’t you do that, and perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion, otherwise, don’t waste my time.

    I know, I know, you’re either too lazy when you’re off or too busy on your new job. Well, you’re never too busy to have ready-made opinions on practically everything, right off the cuff, without having gone through that much thinking.

    Tell me how you manage to do that, I’d certainly like to know, because it’s quite a feat.

  • #48
    Of course, there’s a lot wrong with it! These people are not you, and you are not them. You have to recognize the differences as well as the similarities to have a realistic, meaningful discussion about OWS.

  • Zingzing

    “Anything wrong with that?”

    Yes… It’s not the reality, and is therefore false.

    “What’s your basis for making the arguments you make?”

    Reality. There are many different opinions represented within the ows movement, not just yours and not just mine. You’re claiming things that simply aren’t true.

    How you happen to feel on any particular day?

  • Zingzing

    I’m speaking of the time you took my response (and glenn’s response) to clavos’ statement about Herman Caine and “uncle Tom” and somehow turned it into something incredibly stupid about black people being the only people who are illiterate. You were either dishonest on purpose or you simply can’t read things in their context. My statement (and glenn’s) had absolutely nothing to do with illiteracy. If that’s beyond you, there isn’t much I can do about it. But if it’s not, you straight up lied soley to disparage Glenn and I. Either way, it was very, very wrong.

  • “Roger has been claiming this thing as completely and soley reflective of his own personal philosophy …” #36

    Anything wrong with that? What’s your basis for making the arguments you make? How you happen to feel on any particular day?

  • Yes, it was directed at you, zing. However, since I knew not exactly where you were coming from, I posed my remark as a question, haven’t I?

    So don’t you be worrying about my reading comprehension and be concerned instead with your own abilities to process the written word, especially when you feel injured.

  • Zingzing

    Roger, I have no idea if #39 was directed toward me… If it was, it’s a pretty good indicator you can’t comprehend things too well. You live in your own world, or maybe you just lie to yourself as well.

  • Only a fractional minority of OWS participants are focusing on the Fed, and some of the people, left and right, who do focus on the Fed have very little idea what they are talking about. If Dr Ron Paul says it, it must be true, ha! It is High Nuttiness actually.

  • Arch Conservative

    “How do you reconcile those two statements? ”

    Fair enough question Dr. While the OWS protestors and I may see some of the same things as plaguing this nation we are worlds apart for the most part in terms of where to go once the problem has been identified.

    Before I get into the differences of the proposed solutions between myself and the OWS crowd let me very briefly state the very short list of similarities as far as solutions go between us. First is the End of the Fed. I am all for ending the Fed as many of the OWS people I’m told are too. Is it a coincidence that prior to the formation of the FEd in 1913 the USA was the worlds largest creditor nation and since then we have become the world’s largest debtor nation? I think not. The second similarity is our opposition to pointless war. Many at OWS may oppose all war because they are pacifists. I am not and do not oppose all use of force but rather pointless, wasteful use of force (ie Iraq & Afghanistan).

    Now the differences. I am constantly being told that when I refer to the solutions offered by the OWS crowd I am actually just cherry picking the words of some of the more extremist elements present. Actually I’m not though. I’m responding to the words of those that are the loudest and most vocal coming from the OWS crowd. The ones that get the most media coverage and internet traction. Apparently the more moderate majority of the OWS crowd has not done their part to counter the more radical elements and voice thier own more moderate views which are much more aligned with mainstream America in an attempt to paint a more accurate picture of the movement. I believe that’s absolute horsehit but even if it were true, it’s not my fault and I can only respond to the loud mouths.

    The OWS crowd has made clear what they believe the solutions to be. they have asked for wealth redistribution, free college education, total debt forgiveness, a “livable wage whether or not a person has a job,” and other such demands. In listening to these protestors one learns that they expect the government to provide all of these freebies. In a nutshell they want everything in life given to them without having to make any effort on their own part.

    I on the other hand believe in the calling card of Mr. Lew Rockwell, “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.” I do not believe that we as citizens should be relying on the government for our livelihood. I think that whenever a man is physically and mentally capable, he should provide for himself as much as possible. I can see that the deck has been stacked against many of us that are indeed physically and mentally capable by a small amoral elite class.

    Ideally we’d live in a society where capitalism was the dominant driving force but tempered with some level of social welfare for those WHO TRULY NEEDED IT. Most business would realize that the profit motive was their reason for existing yet also acknowledge that ethics are important too and that all encompassing greed to the point where an enterprise has no recognizable sense of humanity does no one any good. Businesses from small business to global conglomerates would treat their employees with the dignity and respect that they ought to and reward those with something to offer. We’d see an investment in these employees and not the screwing them over so that the few at the top could have their golden parachutes. Individual effort and achievement would justifiably merit individual reward and not bring about suspicion of one’s motives or character. You should have the opportunity to make a lot of money if you have something of value to offer the world and as long as you’re not a completely greedy, callous amoral prick while doing it you should have no fear of the government or your fellow citizens coming for what you’ve worked to achieve. There would be social welfare and yes it would even be offered by the state and funded by tax revenue ..and yes this is the actual Arch Conservative writing this. However this social welfare would be offered much more stringently than it is now. It goes without saying that children, the elderly and the mentally/physically handicapped would be entitled to it no questions asked. From there we’d have state that dispensed it with a mind toward creating a citizenry of self dependent individuals rather than dependents looking for their next handout. people would not be allowed to game the system as they do now.

    That’s how I’d like to see our nation being run. I know, pretty idealistic and niave. But no more unrealistic than the “give me what I want because I want it” OWS crowd. The fact is that I’m just one guy on a blogsite. I don’t have the answers. No one person does. I just know the kind of society that I’d like to live in and the OWS people from what I have seen and heard from them over the past couple of weeks with my own lying eyes and ears despite all the claims to the contrary here on BC, do not even come close to representing that society.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Nevermind, Roger. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn’t have.

  • We’ve been there before, Jordan, I owned up to it.

    So your point is, what exactly?

    See ya tomorrow, my man, God wiling.

  • Clavos

    ‘Democrat Party’ is a phrase invented by Rush Limbaugh purely to annoy Democrats.

    And he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Not even Rush is all bad…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Settling into that domineering, dominant Prompter role again, eh Roger?

  • Are you perchance referring to my ill-fated satire?

    Tell you what, Tsetse. Meet me on my own grounds and rest assured, I’ll meet you in kind. So it’s back to the Animal Farm in case you failed to notice. Otherwise, unless you speak your peace, take care lest you be swatted.

  • Zingzing

    Roger, you’re a liar in my book. You made up some shit about Glenn and I on another thread and I’m still quite pissed about that. You need to check in with reality before you start asking for respect. You take whatever meaning you want even if the words spoken are contrary to what you take them for, both around here and in the ows movement. So, no, it wasn’t a sign of respect, because I can’t do that right now. You owe both glenn and I an apology. You know as well as I do that you took words out of their context and applied them to something completely outside of that context for no good reason other than to label Glenn and I as racists. You’ve done similar, for different ends, with the message of ows. My respect for your ability to receive a message and interpret it correctly is at a low.

  • You’re backsliding, zing, but that’s not unusual of brand-new converts, so I’ll forgive you.

    Thanks, BTW, for addressing me in the third person, I really mean it.

    A new sign of respect?

    I certainly hope so.

  • Zingzing

    Roger has been claiming this thing as completely and soley reflective of his own personal philosophy since the beginning. In that, he’s just as bad as the mischaracterizations promoted by Archie. It is what it is, but it’s not what they say it is. Anyone who claims this is about the end of capitalism or american democracy as we know it is full of shit. And anyone hoping for that is bound for disappointment. America needs an enema, not a sex change.

  • The Democrats are bankrupt, Handy, otherwise this protest would never materialize.

    As to what you call “idealizing,” hoping is a better term. And I certainly hope for great deal of shit disturbing on a massive scale.

    Third, I don’t deny there are some bright lights, but I don’t associate them with the Democrat party.

    And lastly, I’m well aware of the noun vs. adjective distinction. My use was intended to be pejorative, just so you know,

    PS: Why should you find it surprising that some of the Democrats pay lip service to OWS (as opposed to the Republicans who are bashing it)? What’s the import here?

    Lastly, “simplistic criticism and idealism,” your own terms, don;t really apply here. These people put their bodies on the line in peaceful protest, and I would too if I had the means.

    You should be the last person to talk if you’ve ever been involved in gay struggle.

  • Roger, you are idealizing OWS and also putting your words into its mouth. [OWS is not a single philosophy or message.] And you’re exaggerating the philosophical bankruptcy of the Democrats just to fit your theory…and you simply ignore the many Dems, past and present who are exceptions to your prejudice.

    If OWS had to deal with governing, using policy, solving real-world problems, they would no doubt fall short, too, because they are human and because it’s a big damn country. It’s so bloody easy to sit at a computer and throw around simplistic criticism and idealism. Not so easy to put actual practical policy where your very big mouth is.

    [And remember, the OWS is already being viciously slandered by the right…not by the Democrats. I guess that’s “irrelevant,” too. Everything that doesn’t fit into your tunnel vision is “irrelevant.”]

    And it’s the Democratic Party. ‘Democrat’ is a noun, ‘Democratic’ is the adjective. ‘Democrat Party’ is a phrase invented by Rush Limbaugh purely to annoy Democrats.

  • Archie, I’m curious.

    You say that “I am in that 99% and they [OWS] certainly do not represent my views nor the views of anyone that I know personally”.

    Yet just one paragraph later you say this:

    “The crony capitalism, croporatism or whatever other label you want to apply to situation we currently have whereby big business and big government take care of each other to the detriment to every single person that is not a member of this most elite of country clubs is very real and very distressing. The military industrial complex/globalist new world order agenda that is supported whole heartedly by both of our major political parties is tearing at the soul of a once great nation.”

    How do you reconcile those two statements?

    Or is it that you don’t, and your dislike of OWS is simply personal and nothing to do with the issues?

  • I wasn’t condescending when I used those words. The very use of those words suggests the very opposite — exhortation comes to mind.

    I’m glad you’re in accord with the overall “message” of OWS, but I do find it rather naive that it’s the same message that issues from the Democrat party — and forgive me for saying so, the Establishment.

    If anything, OWS is against the Establishment, because Establishment had proved to be an abject failure. Hence the protests.

    “Protecting the less privileged” is a noble slogan, and it surely is the presumed objective of the Democrat party. The problem is, the Democrat party never delivered.

    So again, no, it’s not that OWS merely mimics the supposed credo of the Democrat party or is part of the Democrat party tradition. Quite the contrary, it takes those words in earnest, pays it no mere lip service, and intends to take it to a whole new level.

    If anything, it’s the Democrat party that has to learn from OWS and follow the lead, not vice versa.

  • I do ‘give a fuck,’ thank you, Mr. Condescension.

    I didn’t say what I want to happen. The Tea Party influenced electoral politics in unpredictable ways, and OWS could also. [If there had been no Obama health care bill, (unjustified, misguided) anger about which fueled Tea Party growth, there may never have been a change election in 2010 with so many know-nothing radical conservatives elected.]

    OWS is interesting and appealing but still inchoate and unformed. There will be a presidential election next year, with or without the participation of OWS. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. OWS does not speak with a single voice, to put it mildly; and while they are not pro-Obama [though far from being as anti as you], they are not likely to find President Mitt Romney to be a very appealing prospect.

    So we’ll see. The GOP successfully used the Tea Party in 2010…but the results could be a backlash to their corrosive, negative, non-policies. They may lose big in the Congressional election next year.

    Smart Democrats may lift ideas and rhetoric from OWS. In other words, OWS may influence the Democratic Party. And if your ‘revolution’ is decades away rather than months away, you should be glad about that influence.

    Protecting the less privileged from the predations of the more privileged has been a continuing theme of liberalism and the Democratic party for decades. OWS is not completely apart from that tradition, and “We are the 99%” in fact fits right in.

  • It’s the worst possible scenario that you’re describing (hoping for?) if OWS had become absorbed by the mainstream of Democrat politics. Democrat politics, no less than Republican politics, have both been nothing but abject failure. Are you a masochist or simply deaf to the true meaning of the term patriot?

    Civil disobedience and protest against government, unjust government, is part of the American tradition. Unless you’re willing to argue that our government is responsive to the needs of the people, and I don’t see how you could do that, I really don’t know what to make of your non-committal, say-nothing comment.

    There’s time to sit on the fence, and there’s time not to. Start giving a fuck for a change!

  • OWS is not — yet — about electoral politics. But Democrats will try to harness its energy just as the GOP tried with partial success to absorb the Tea Party.

    I don’t actually see it playing out the same way, but it will be interesting. [In the GOP, the Tea Party tail is wagging the dog, with what I see as disastrous consequences.]

    At the moment, Dems such as Pelosi and Biden and Maddow are praising OWS and conservatives from Eric Cantor to Rush Limbaugh to Fox News are slandering the movement — a strategy they may, in time, regret, since many Americans seem open to OWS rhetoric, at least in a very generalized way.

  • Didn’t Arch used to be a Mitt fan, predicting his victory over ‘that c— Hillary’ when they looked like probable nominees in 2007?

  • Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

  • Arch Conservative

    “But you also realize that the party opposite is not a solution either, or if you don’t you should.”

    Have you ever known me to sing the praises of the modern Republican party? My hopes for this nation are more in line with the libertarian style, non interventionist, Ron Paul school of thought than the big government, war mongering neocon GOP. I didn’t vote for that kook McCain in 2008 and I sure as hell don’t plan on voting for Romney in 2012. I will vote for Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary and then write his name in again in the general if my choices are Magic Underpants Mitt and Jesus Aint Got Shit on Me Barry Obama.

    “No one knows what exactly will emerge as a result, but I sure as hell would rather see some serious shit disturbing on a massive scale than be participating, like a good citizen, in a system I know doesn’t work.”

    I don’t believe what we’re seeing with the OWS movement rises to the level of “serious shit” which could possible affect the type of change I’d like to see but then I’m tired of going back and forth on this point. I’m not changing anyone’s mind, not even trying to, and no one will be changing mine with regard to this.

  • Obviously, more of “liberalism” or a stronger Democrat party is not as solution, Arch, and those who believe otherwise — I need not mention names — are confused, not dishonest. So you’re ahead of the game on that score. But you also realize that the party opposite is not a solution either, or if you don’t you should.

    It’s the entire paradigm that stinks, Arch, and the sooner we get rid of it, the better. What OWS is doing thus far is bypassing our so-called “democratic process” by saying, “We don’t need you, fuckers, because you’re irrelevant.” In that sense, it’s value thus far is mainly symbolic, and that’s a beginning.

    No one knows what exactly will emerge as a result, but I sure as hell would rather see some serious shit disturbing on a massive scale than be participating, like a good citizen, in a system I know doesn’t work.

  • Arch Conservative

    Of course I don’t know the solution Roger. Never claimed that I did. However I don’t have to know the solution to know when I see something else that is obviously not the solution.

    I guess I’d do less “bashing” as you put it if others on BC would stop claiming that my concerns of are the exact same concerns of others who I don’t particularly care for and if others wold be a little more honest with who they are and what they want.

  • “… I am in that 99% and they certainly do not represent my views nor the views of anyone that I know personally.”

    You’re wrong, Arch. You’re in a class all by yourself. As to the people you know personally, I can’t help that.

    I think you should re-direct your anger along more constructive endeavors rather than be bashing imaginary enemies or those on BC who don’t think like you (though you said it functions for you like a safety valve).

    You said OWS is not a solution to the kind of problems you enumerate. What is the solution, then? I don’t believe you yourself know because you haven’t even hinted at one. So forgive me if I interpret your comment as nothing but than outburst.

  • Arch Conservative

    “There is something more organic about how OWS started and how it has evolved over the past few weeks.”

    Yes Big Union showing up certainly says “organic.” As does the fact that the “movement” is called “occupy wall street” yet most of the polls being taken of the protestors reveal that they support Barack Obama, the man who received more funding from Wall Street than any other person who ran in the 2008 presidential election.

    What we’re seeing on display is the “professional left.” The perpetually aggrieved, the professional protestors, the most ardent supporters of big brother statism, the poster children for dependency and the total dissolution of the notions of personal accountability and merit. The buzz words being thrown around at these protest are “economic justice” “social justice,” and “total debt forgiveness.” These are not terms used by a large and diverse representation of the varying sociopolitical and economic vantage points that exist within this nation at this point in time. Rather they are code words used by the far left.

    Whenever I hear one of the occupy protestors claiming to represent the other 99% I have to laugh. I am in that 99% and they certainly do not represent my views nor the views of anyone that I know personally. It brings to mind the thuggish unions that have thrown in with this “movement.” Every time some union jackhole is on TV running his mouth he’s almost certain to claim that unions represent the middle class despite the fact that unions currently make up 6.9% of the total private sector workforce in this nation. That is not even one out of every ten workers in the private sector yet the unions “represent the middle class?” If one were to factor in the people that are only in unions because their job requires it and who would gladly leave the union if they felt that they could do so and not be harassed by some Tony Soprano wannabe union thug then it would more likely be 6% or lower of union membership in the private sector.

    The crony capitalism, croporatism or whatever other label you want to apply to situation we currently have whereby big business and big government take care of each other to the detriment to every single person that is not a member of this most elite of country clubs is very real and very distressing. The military industrial complex/globalist new world order agenda that is supported whole heartedly by both of our major political parties is tearing at the soul of a once great nation.

    This problem, while as obvious and immediate as Hillary Clinton is unattractive, is not likely to be solved by a bunch of petulant leftists standing in the street demanding their asses be wiped for them 1000 different ways.

    Criticize the tea party all you want but it seems to me that is a movement which is made up of adults as opposed to the whiney, inept manchildren that makeup OWS.

  • I think what happens with the OWS movement will depend largely upon what happens after the weather gets nasty, and the majority of the protesters return home. Not everything can be accomplished in the street. The success or failure of the movement may hinge on what happens behind closed doors, if you will. Will the movement perhaps hybernate over the winter and then come back stronger in the spring?

    Of course, with this movement as with those of the so called “Arab Spring” is a different and significant dynamic: The internet, cell phones, twitter, etc. Things can happen in a relative instant pretty much worldwide, which wasn’t possible in the days of the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

    We expect these type of movements to have a focus and a small core of leaders. That may not happen this time around.

    The tea baggers claimed that they had no leaders, that it was all grass roots, but that was bullshit. To this day there are a very small handful of very rich puppet masters directing that movement. That may ultimately may be found to be true of the OWS movement, but I don’t think that’s the case at this point in time. There is something more organic about how OWS started and how it has evolved over the past few weeks. That could prove to be an advantage to them in that there is really no one person or group that can effectively be singled out for attack. How this will play out is anybody’s guess right now.

  • Good link. Had no idea it started in 58.

  • I’m all with you, Diana, hoping for the best and keeping my fingers crossed.

    Are you still in Germany? Has it affected your perspective?

  • Roger, the protests and movements you speak of did in fact start very small with relatively few involved and with minimal outside support. How small a movement or protest is or how disorganized it is in the beginning is not a precursor to its success. If such were the criteria, the French Revolution would’ve collapsed by the second year.

    My own hometown’s contribution to the Civil Rights Movement is generally unrecognized and unheard of to this day even though it was one of the first and was the stencil, if you will, for following sit-ins.

  • @14

    First paragraph — well, it has for the “average” man. The jobs aren’t there, and those you can get pay much less.

    Does the average American want to get filthy rich? That’s debatable. I would think all they want is a modicum of comfort, that’s all.

    Besides, values change. What you may have wanted years ago no longer figures on your list of priorities.

    I think it would be a mistake to reduce the main motivation on the part of the OWS protesters to mere self-concern. There is certain identification at work with the less privileged segments of the American society, those less privileged than themselves — an idealism of sorts, if you like. “We are the 99 percent” kind of captures that and fires the movement.

  • Dr. D, Poignant comment. Having lived, worked, gone to college, etc through the years leading up to the present crisis (I don’t claim to be the only by any stretch), I maintain the climate has changed.

    What you point out about Cain is true; painfully true, but lost on a lot of people. I wrote about that as well, and many of the commenters did not believe me.

  • John Lake

    Late breaking: Cain changing 9-9-9 to 9-0-9 !
    He has made sweeping changes, at no doubt the urging of advisers. Another case of flip-flop is an understatement. In any case, good; big improvement.

  • It’s not so much that the economic climate has changed over the last 20 years: that smacks of an excuse. A sufficiently determined person can navigate the modern pitfalls Diana enumerates just as surely as any “self-made” individual, just by a different route.

    What galls me about people like Herman Cain is their attitude of “If I could, anyone can”.


    We each have unique talents. Mr Cain’s enabled him to build a business empire. Most of us would get nowhere with that kind of endeavour because we just don’t have the inbuilt aptitude for it.

    There are folks who can pull down 80k a year by hanging around freeway off ramps with a cardboard sign. I bet you that if I tried that, I wouldn’t make a cent.

    If Mr Cain set out to be a world champion athlete, he wouldn’t succeed no matter how hard he worked.

    Funny that you don’t hear the likes of Michael Phelps or Tom Brady complacently tossing off comments about how anyone can become a swimming champion or a star quarterback if they only work at it hard enough. They know that their gifts are rare and they have the humility to be conscious of it.

  • John Lake

    I don’t recall reading the Harriet Beecher Stowe classic “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (or “Life Among the Lowly”), but a quick check with the Urban Dictionary produces this definition of “Uncle Tom”: “A black man who will do anything to stay in good standing with ‘the white man’ including betray his own people.”
    The point of my comment was that Cain disdains the new poor working class, and the impoverished, which owing to centuries of discrimination in education, hiring and housing, includes many blacks. Cain would eliminate entitlements, tax the less able to pay, and recommend used items.
    Some may have missed Cains decision to release all the terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for one American prisoner. He hemmed and hawed, looked at the ground, looked away, and said, “well, maybe.”
    They ignore this sort of thing, call the man likable. I don’t see it. And the last candidate that sang was General Dempsey who was being considered for a major military position. I was repulsed by him too.

  • Unaided, minimal coverage by MSM, the crowds are still small. You need bodies, lots of bodies, to build and sustain a momentum. There’ll be always dedicated individuals, but it’s the masses that must be energized or it will peter out.

    In the sixties we had an explosive situation triggered by the draft (affecting many in the anti-war protest in a direct and immediate way) and the Civil Rights struggle, the Black Panthers, SDS. Entire communities were energized, and the campuses were the centers of revolutionary activity and thought as well and offered protection. These elements are missing.

    Taking to the streets, especially in a peaceful manner, is a different proposition, calling for a great deal of patience and perseverance.

  • I don’t know, Roger. That would be a question to ask them. And I don’t know how long they can maintain, either. I would ask you, though, what do you mean with “left to their own devices”? Do you mean presence, money, etc?

  • An optimistic picture, Diana. Where are the feminists, the gays and the African-Americans? Why don’t we hear from any of them by way of show of support?

    What OWS has done so far is admirable, but for how long can they maintain the revolutionary fervor while left to their own devices?

  • Thank you for the clarification, Heloise 🙂

  • Heloise

    diana that comment was directed at John Lake not you sorry if you didn’t get it.

  • Race (and racial history) has nothing to do with the claims Cain and his ilk make about the have-nots.

  • Heloise

    good article for sure. one sign “The right and left agree END THE FED.” That seems to sum up a lot of the angst. And loans that are as high as eagle sh*t and no job in sight.

    People just want to know. But this is what I envisioned when Bush was not impeached for his wars. That takeover of the gov by the many against the few would be the way to go. So in my mind this OWS is about 7 years too late. Better late than never.

  • Heloise

    Here’s who the real Uncle Tom was about, a virtual black hero Josiah Henson. Is it because people don’t know history or is it just easy to play the Uncle Tom card?

    I am not sure why his name is pilloried now:
    “Uncle Tom’s Cabin Historic Site commemorates the life of Reverend Josiah Henson. Recognized for his contributions to the abolition movement and for his work in the Underground Railroad, he rose to international fame after Harriet Beecher Stowe acknowledged his memoirs as a source for her 1852 anti-slavery novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It was Henson’s life experiences that inspired Ms. Stowe’s creation of the character Uncle Tom in her 1852 outcry against slavery.” from Uncle Tom. org site.

    Whenever most blacks talk about “bad blacks” they call it plantation politics because slaves often ratted other slaves out or were the overseers themselves. Is that what you mean? Slaves or black men who sold out other blacks. Because Uncle Tom was actually a liberator.


  • One of the most cogent commentaries on OWS and today’s political dynamic I’ve read in ages. Thanks, Diana.

  • Clavos

    In a wise world, the government would make the parts and the ships.

    In which case, they would probably not float…

  • John Lake

    We might consider a Romney/Cain pairing. In the disastrous event of their being elected, Romney would spend government money from lawd knows where on battleships, submarines, and missile systems, while Cain (most don’t remember “Uncle Tom”, who whipped the slaves and bawled, “yes, mahster!”) berates the multitudes for their failures and explains they will enjoy paying more taxes if they understand the tax system. He will continue to suggest used clothing as a universal option. People seem to like him. Maybe they just don’t understand the man.
    Thanks to Cain many of us are now aware of the hidden tax syndrome. One fellow produces the metal bolts for the propeller assembly: when the lower prop area boys buy the screws, they pay the tax. The upper prop boys buy the lower prop assembly, and pay the tax. This goes on form stem to stern, and all the taxes go to buy the battle ships. It’s all disconcerting but with that amount of record keeping, there’s little that couldn’t be proved. In a wise world, the government would make the parts and the ships. In a more real world, it’ll probably be done overseas.

  • Great job.