I am the 9 9 9

I just started a new website that offers free wall photos. www.liberalheartmoderatemind.com has photos of political thought, humor and satire that you can grab and post on Facebook and freely share with friends. My previous blog post here featured my first wall photo creation in response to words by Penn Jillette. This is my second wall photo creation, and it features quotes from Republican Presidential Primary candidate Herman Cain. The quotes are real, even though the sign obviously is not. Here are the gathered quotes in a little more context.

First - Occupy the White House. Not a quote, but an obvious play on the Occupy Wall Street movement to set up the satire.

"I'm going to only allow small bills - 3 pages." This quote comes from June 7th of this year when Herman Cain was complaining about the length of the Affordable Care Act. The complexity of the 2,700 pages of the new health care law bothers him so much that he offers the quote here. On June 8th, Stephen Colbert comically points out that our US Constitution is 4 pages, and the Emancipation Proclamation is 5 pages.

"it's class warfare." On July 17th of this year, Herman Cain was interviewed by Chris Wallace on FoxNews Sunday. When Chris asked him about Warren Buffet's tax rate being lower than his secretary's, Herman Cain responds - " This whole thing about Warren Buffett's tax rate is just playing the class warfare card. This whole thing about talkin' about people flying' around in corporate jets - it's just class warfare."  I agree that it's class warfare. When the ultra-rich can influence tax code in their favor through the influence of hired lobbyists to the point that the effective tax rate is lower for the rich than the middle class, then that is class warfare. Pointing out existing class warfare via the disparity the rich have in their favor through the tax code however is just simple observation.

OK. In double checking my quotes, I just realized that technically in this quote I should have placed ellipsis between "it's" and "class" since I missed the word "just" in between. Oh well. There goes my perfect transcription record. With that blunder noted, the next quote comes from a Face the Nation appearance.

On October 9th of this year Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were interviewed together by Bob Schieffer. With Pastor Jeffers' recent comment calling Mormonism a cult amidst a Republican debate, Bob Schieffer squarely asks Herman Cain - "Do you think Mormons are Christians?" Cain responds "I believe that they believe that they are Christians based upon their definition, but getting into wether they are more Christian than another group, I don't think that's relevant to this campaign." I agree that one's faith or lack thereof is personal and should not be used as a means of political gain or image manipulation for various voter blocs. Not for the average citizen, not for the campaigning politician. Nonetheless, political reality must consider common views that prevail amongst any bloc of voters.  One such reality is that many Christian conservatives do view Mormonism as a cult, and Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is frankly a political liability for him within the Christian conservative vote. Making a clear statement in support of Mormonism is somewhat risky for any Republican candidate - especially in the primaries. Yet just as risky, if not more, is clearly stating any non-acceptance of others' religion. Cain tries to straddle that line by not actually answering. Cain never says if he believes if Mormons are Christians. He cops out by saying that he believes that THEY believe they are Christians. He even adds the "…based upon their definition." Though a politician's religion only becomes an issue for me if they parade it around with great showcase, the way one handles such direct questions like this (at least to me) says a lot about a person's character. Especially when you compare this reply here to his statements about how others tell him they don't understand Romney's Mormonism in relation to Christian Protestantism. Cain tends to talk about others' religions and religious comments, and distance himself from the act of casting aspersions by saying that this is what OTHERS have said.

Back to July 17 again for the next quote. Talking to Chris Wallace about the debt ceiling debate, they discuss the idea to not raise it, pay out bond holders just enough to not technically commit default, then cut the remaining spending by 44% in order to not have deficit this year. Without one specific cut offered, Cain says that this is do-able by eliminating "non-essentials". He argues that a 44% budget reduction is not as drastic as it sounds by saying that you would have to go through "…program by program and find that money. Some agencies you might need to cut 60%. Some agencies you might need to cut 30%. To say 40% across the board. No. That's not how you get there. The way you get there is you take agency by agency by agency and look for those cuts and some of them are gonna be bigger than 40%.""

"Restructure Medicare." comes from the Sept 12 tea party/CNN debate.

October 9 again - Face the Nation. Talking about his 9 9 9 tax plan, Cain says that it will not hurt poor people.  He says the plan is "…revenue neutral" continuing "This means people that are under-employed will be able to find a job that they are more qualified for.". Then he adds that this means those who "are low-wage earners, they can find a second job." Of course no explanation for these connections is offered. I can't find a way to make such a connection no matter how many times I scratch my head. When Bob Schieffer says some economists say this is wrong, Cain replies "They have changed our assumptions. That's why they say that it's not correct." There are actually more equally bizarre assertions on his 9 9 9 plan in this part of the interview, but let's move on to the next quote.

During the tea party/CNN debate on Sept 12, this question was asked. "All of you profess to be pro-business candidates for President. Can you be pro-worker at the same time?"  Herman Cain discusses the work ethic of his family growing up and eventually says "One restaurant IS the basic fundamental business unit in this country."

In an online Wall Street Journal interview with Alan Murray, when Occupy Wall Street comes up, Cain reduces the movement to a sense of unwarranted entitlement and offers the absolute philosophy of individual responsibility in this statement. "If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself." Now, compare that sentiment to what he said a year ago on Oct. 14, 2010. "The American Dream is under attack because our government is being hijacked by the liberals in DC." Is this a complete change of philosophy over a year's time, or just blatant hypocrisy? Hmmm. Considering that he doesn't understand what Occupy Wall Street is about, I have to wonder. In this same interview he says "I don't understand these demonstrations and what is it they are looking for." He also says he believes that Occupy Wall Street is an orchestrated and planned attempt to distract from what he calls the "failed policies of the Obama administration." But he also prefaces that very assertion with  "I don't have facts to back this up." (The last half of that WSJ interview had so many Herman Cain gems.)

"I'm the black walnut." is a phrase Herman Cain used when on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He has been referring to himself as a black walnut in various ways in the past couple weeks, often saying black walnut is not just the flavor of the week. (This started when Sarah Palin had said that Herman Cain was the flavor of the week.)

I am the 999 is not a quote, just the satirical reference to all the "I am the 99%" signs. (Humor and satire really wither when you explain it, doesn't it? - lol) Now for the last real Herman Cain quote on the fictional sign in this wall photo.

During the Republican debate on August 11 of this year, a moderator brought up an earlier remark of Cain's. She asks "When President Obama joked about protecting the borders with alligators and a moat, not only did you embrace the idea, you upped the ante with quote "a twenty foot barbed wire electrified fence". Were you serious?" With great humor, Cain replies "America's got to learn how to take a joke."

Listening to Herman Cain in various debates and interviews, I am happily taking the joke for now. He is pretty funny. As long as his joke never gets to occupy the White House. Then this comedy would quickly turn to national tragedy.

Response to Penn Jilette

This wall photo just started circulating on Facebook. 

(The left half of the above image.) 

I added my 2 cents to Penn's thoughts, put them side by side with the wall photo and posted the resulting image above to my Facebook account. Clicking the image should enlarge it enough to read it.
         Below is what I wrote:

         

         I like Penn, but this part of his thought process I always thought showed him to be an idiot. Yes. An idiot. To believe that simply leaving "compassion" or safety nets to the sole responsibility of the individual or small non-profit group will ever be either adequate or consistent is pure fantasy. To leave the social and moral responsibility of offering a hand-up to those who are in desperate need to the whims of prevailing public perception and fluctuations of an individual's compelling sense to act is grossly insufficient. Subjecting critical assistance for an individual or family to the judgement of their neighbors, wether conscious or not, invariably leaves many unhelped. We once followed that path in America. The results made tough times not only tough but beyond disastrous. It is correct to say that helping poor people yourself is compassion. Regardless of what minimal safety nets against absolute poverty we may instill via government, the individual can always show true compassion by helping poor and suffering people themselves. Nothing stops anyone from doing so. Yet such individualized help proves woefully incapable of meeting the basic challenge. Despite any and all attempts to find common ground with opposing thought, when I am faced with such libertarian absolutes, I have no choice but to call them idiotic.

Response to fictional OWS day in the life

A friend recently sent me this link of a gentleman offering his perspective on the Occupy Wall Street movement. Below the link to the video is my response to mattwillwork's video post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qqRFYv3ao&feature=player_embedded


Some good very relevant points are brought up here. Mostly however, he obviously doesn't even get what he himself says - these people must be unemployed if they have the time to be protesting so much. Exactly! If this large lack of jobs weren't the case, OWS would not be such a large movement. 


Despite the diversity of economic issues being raised with OWS, if there were jobs - even minimum wage jobs - available to everyone seeking work, then people would not risk losing that work by going to rallies, and the numbers of people turning up to protest could never reach the levels that they do. Realize, OWS is not a one-day rally. It is an ongoing movement growing quite rapidly and it has spread across the nation (and further). It has been going on for over a month non-stop. 


Nonetheless, the vlogger here later comes back to the point of large scale unemployment by saying that the 90% of us who have jobs are laughing at you. That mentality - the ignorant willful whitewashing in one's own mind of the plight of the jobless who need help - brings to mind that classic Bruce Hornsby song. The one where the people waiting in an unemployment line because they can't find work are being belittled by passersby who yell "Get a job!". The vlogger even repeats this very belittlement. Not just an insensitive remark, but one showing a complete lack of understanding of what is driving the OWS movement. 

He also chooses to assume that OWS is about simply demonizing corporations for the sake of considering capitalism a bad thing. That's where most OWS detractors are making awfully big and wildly inaccurate assumptions. I am not the only who has been writing that capitalism is not the enemy - greed gone unchecked is the enemy. It is the prime directive of business to maximize profits. Greed is a given. That's why balance is designed within the regulations that keep capitalism in check rather than allow it to consume and destroy an entire economy.

When our regulations and trade agreements (or lack thereof) offer a big profit bump by eliminating 2.4 million US jobs, replacing them with 2.7 million foreign jobs at a fraction of the cost, then that is what US business is going to do. Even the most "American" of big business still has profit maximization as the prime directive rather than greater American economic good. But the point is, no one (well no one who is honestly thinking about why they protest) is protesting to try to end business or destroy capitalism. The overwhelming majority realize that capitalism itself is one crucial piece of the American Dream. No one is going to make their own footwear or clothes. No one can deny that so many things we all rely upon on a daily basis are made easily available through a combination of business, and the national infrastructure that we all pay for. 

But there is something else that cannot be denied - something at the very core of the OWS movement - the fact that greed of big business has gone unchecked. In America, CEOs average 475 times the pay of the average worker they "oversee". Next is Venezuela where CEOs make 50 times the average pay of the workers they "oversee". Big banks get free loans from our government while they turn around and throw people out of their homes by the millions rather than restructure crazy underwater loans. Apple makes all its products overseas so that they can pay a few dollars per hour to the people who actually make their goods, rather than paying American workers living wages to do so. All in the name of following the prime directive - maximize profits. A prime directive that is limited ONLY by what system of regulatory checks is placed upon it.

The only thing that keeps capitalism functioning smoothly is well-designed checks. Checks that do not allow the greed to grow so rampant that it actually eats the system that feeds it - like is happening now. Checks that do not allow Wall Streeters to bundle sub-prime loans and do large scale credit default swaps, selling moderate to high risk goods they created as low risk high value goods, thus collapsing the economy. No one has been taken to task for this. Probably because our regulators in the name of right-leaning ideology dismantled the regulations that used to protect our economy from that very risk. But even if it was legal, it doesn't change the fact that no one has been held accountable for this. We simply live with millions of foreclosures, higher jobless rates and allow those who made hundreds of millions off of this destruction to continue hoarding that ill-gained and destructive wealth.

No. No one in their right mind is saying business in itself is bad or that capitalism doesn't work. Just like the guy here points out, we all rely on business for the goods and services of modern day life. The overwhelming majority of OWS protesters though are saying that we have allowed greed to go unchecked for too long amidst our great system of capitalism, and we want balance restored. Exactly how to restore that balance is the big question. It will undoubtedly be fought over with great passion. But balance must be, and will be, just as it always does, eventually be somehow regained.

In the meantime, creating moment by moment events of fictional protesters is just one more distraction. Especially when the fictionalized characters suffer no effects of joblessness or poverty. The one jobless recent college grad in his example is lucky enough to be alright because his father makes plenty of money to support a whole family. For millions of real jobless Americans, no such financial backup scenario exists. This is the biggest fallacy of OWS criticism. There ARE millions of Americans who are not only without a good paying salary large enough to support an entire family, but even without low-wage work. There ARE millions of examples of fellow American citizens who through no fault of their own are jobless simply because there are far fewer jobs in America than there are citizens. Simply yelling at them to "Get a job!" does nothing to address the issue and only further demonstrates YOUR lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

The vlogger here starts his day-in-the-life scenario by calling the OWS protesters "...self-righteous and morally indignant hypocrites" for speaking out against corporate greed. The irony is that such a label applies to all of us speaking our minds through only one view of any issue at the exclusion of others. No matter how much I may seek to understand and take into account different perspectives before getting on my own soapbox, I accept that the phrase would have to apply to me. It clearly applies to the vlogger himself in his reduction of OWS protesters to being "all a bunch of fucking litterbugs" who are "young, stoned and unemployed" who fail to help others who have less than themselves. This despite the outpouring of food, water and more that so many protesters bring in bulk to give away to others. This despite the diversity of politico-economic issues so cogently addressed by so many protesters. No. Between this vlogger, myself, and the majority of the OWS protesters, the least "self-righteous and morally indignant hypocrites" are the protesters. 

We can either realize that there are multiple economic issues being addressed through OWS protests, the least of which is the fact that America has far fewer jobs than it does citizens. Or, if it makes us feel better, we can simply dismiss the whole OWS movement by claiming that they are all dirty stoners who are protesting for "causes [they] don't understand." If that's the choice you make, don't forget to tell them all to "Just go out and get a job!"