Let Reason Prevail: A Request of Atheists

     I read a recent News article entitled "Atheists seek OK for banner at Christmas display."  It appears that a national atheist foundation sought to display its own banner among the other holiday displays on the courthouse grounds.  There seem to have been some objection to what seem to them only representation by those the Christian faith.  The county judge said that the grounds were open to anyone who wanted to add  religious symbols of their faiths to the holiday display.  The atheists seemed concerned that displays were permitted to represent any religious faith and were countering with a demand for the right to display their own.

     Any display of religious symbols are public  expressions of the faith of those erecting the displays. But these symbols should not be interpreted as saying anything about faiths--or lack of faith--of people not represented by those symbols.  

But the atheist, not only say that they believe in the "natural world"; they want to trash those who have religious beliefs.  That's not what people who display religious symbols are doing, at least, I hope it's not.

     These atheists want permission to display a banner which says:  "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL.  There are no gods, no devils,  no angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world.  Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enclaves minds."   But aren't atheists often guilty of the same things?  

     Religion no doubt has been used by certain people at various times in history to enslave the minds and hearten the hearts of the faithful, often against their neighbors.  But those were not among the basic teachings of major religions nor of their founders.  It might have been sufficient for the banner to simply said: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL."  Or simply say: "Atheists wish everyone HAPPY HOLIDAYS."  There is nothing wrong with atheists or people of faith wishing happiness for others regardless of their religious faith or lack of faith.  It's evidence of not being closed-minded and "hard hearted."

     But atheists call for "REASON" to prevail seems quite appropriate.  So let's try it.  They believe only in "our natural world" as if anybody, including them, knows exactly what that is.  They believe that within a relatively few millions years (say a billion years) "our natural  world" produced some forms of living single-celled organisms from non-living matter.  But how did that primordial life came into being? Nevertheless, those one-celled organism went on to produce mankind, who is constantly discovering new aspects of our natural world, inventing new mathematics to describe it, and using that knowledge to invent smart telephones and technology unimaginable even by the creators of Dick Tracy.   

     Since we have no idea about the limits of "our natural world,"could it not be reasonable that during an eternity it could produce a supreme being that is infinitely more creative than human beings, and who could set into motion those aspects of reality with which we are familiar and others with which we are capable of becoming acquainted?  And any natural world that can create superior intelligence must be enabled by someone or something possessing something that is superior to intelligence.  (I'm just reasoning.) 

     But with everything about "our natural world" that we observe and infer but don't understand and that we don't even know about (visit "Fabric of the Cosmos" on pbs) atheists are willing to conclude that for reasons that defy reason, that God cannot not exist there.

     There appear to be only two choices:  Either "our natural world" with perhaps an infinite IQ  always existed or a supreme being (God) with an equal or perhaps superior attribute.  Both are incomprehensible.   The question about who made either one is legitimate.  I'd rather rather believe there be a supreme, rational being determining what our natural world will be rather or how it will behave than a randomly acting natural world whose only creative tool in trial and error, and that allows anything to happen and makes anybody and anything possible.  However, I Two options are all that I can see.   

     So when atheists ask us to reason, just based on what we know about ourselves and what scientists are learning everyday about ourselves and "our natural world," reason leads us to conclude that we live or exist in a reality of infinite possibilities but not infinite disorderliness.  As long as "our natural world has existed no one has ever found an intelligent telephone, a telescope or any such contraption that nature world built.  Mankind with intelligence had to build them.  

      Yet, the disbelief of atheists is understandable.  That any being could be so awesomely powerful and so incomprehensibly intelligent is unimaginable.  But that's why God is referred to The Supreme Being; He has attributes that aren't in any dictionary.

     So much for the reasoning, though, the inevitability of God hadn't worked for Christopher Hitchens, renown and thoughtful atheist whose interviews many enjoyed.  At least it hadn't at the time of a interview of him after he became ill.  He assured CNN's Anderson Cooper that if anybody heard that he finally found God on his death bed, not to believe it. It will have happened without his permission, to paraphrase. Another renowned atheists, however, admitted considering the possibility that, after death, he might end up somewhere he didn't expect to be.  

     Hitchens and William F. Buckley, Jr. were people with whom I often disagreed, but who compelled me to see the other sides of issues and look for any merits that might exist in opposing opinions.

      Most atheists (in contrast to those who just choose to ignore God) are good, honest, fair-minded people who, like the Biblical Cornelius and his family, know what is right--and do it--without any apparent religious influence.  Jesus has said that no man comes to the Father except by Him.  I believe He will give such people permission to pass on by.

    

President Obama: A Toothless Tiger

December 14, 2011

To:  The Editor                                        

     The President of the United States has been rendered a toothless tiger.  He can roar and growl during his political speeches about the economy and the needs to create jobs, but the fact remains that fellow Democrats defanged the President--and Democrats in Congress--when they did not get out the vote during the 2010 congressional elections.  

     Democrats, including the President, apparently did not recognize the threat that Republican successes posed to the Democrats' agenda.  Even as polls were saying that there would be Republican gains sufficient to take control of the House, Democrats were not telling voters why such a transfer of power would be a disaster for the middle class.  They took the polls as evidence of a movement that they could do nothing about.  Mitch McConnell had already stated the Republican goal was making President Obama a one-term president.  Yet the President did not recognize or anticipate the threat that a Republican-controlled House and the lack of a veto-proof Senate would provide to his presidency.  

     Democrats seemed to have taken for granted that the voter turnout  will always vote less during the mid-term elections regardless of what they did.  To the contrary that should have motivate Democrats to be even more politically active, and make sure that this election was one of the exceptions. 

     I rode around town on election day, seeing if I could find neighborhood signs encouraging voters to vote, and to vote for Democrats.  I did not find any.  Maybe Republican supporters pulled up the signs, but I didn't hear of any such complaints from Democrats.

     Democrats need the votes of the poor and minorities to win.  But increasingly, the poor and minorities are becoming disenchanted because their conditions don't change regardless of who is president or who controls Congress.  Democrats don't even promise to do anything for them anymore.  Their votes, historically, have helped to significantly improved the economic status of members of the middle class and the working poor.  But when middle class members have made it, they have not always used their good fortune to give the less fortunate comrades a helping hand.

     Members of the working poor and non-working poor are not by nature significantly less intelligent than are those in higher income brackets.  This is especially true of members of many black American communities.  What there are less of, though, are environments that encourage, inspire and provide the role models of success and possibilities both within their families and within their communities.  These conditions can be overcome, but usually not without the help of people who know how to make a difference and care enough to try.       

     Consequently, even though many Americans believe there are good reasons to vote for Democrats next November, the wide range of incomes among middle-class families make common ground among them meaningless in terms of the amenities that are possible both within and among the various income levels.

     Who is the middle class, anyway?  Do middle-class families earn yearly, $40-250 thousand a year?  What does a family which earns $40 thousand a year have in common with one which earns $250 thousand per year?  Do families with yearly earnings of $250 thousand have more in common with those with yearly earning of $50 thousand or those with yearly earnings of $500 thousand?.

     Within each wealth class there are people who are seeking to move up within that level or to more to another level of wealth.  Those who are in positions either by educational preparation, intelligence, access to people with influence or other qualities which enable some people to move up the economic ladder faster and further than others don't have a common vision with others about what is best for their situations and expectations.

      Many Americans who are in the upper middle class are satisfied with conditions as they are.  Most of them are living within their means--not trying to live like they are millionaires.  But many of those in the lower middle-class and working poor don't read or listen to political news often enough or with sufficient attention to issues to recognize them, care about them, or take positions about them.  And, unfortunately, they did not hear much advice and encouragement from trusted--often elected--Democratic leaders that might have gotten them out to the polls.

     President Obama had a chance to extend the middle-class tax cuts and unemployment benefits until January 1, 2012, as was agreed to for the Bush tax cuts,.  Allowing them to terminate on December 31, 2011 made no sense, unless the Bush tax cuts also stopped.  

     Future tax cuts should cease for the wealthy on January 1, 2012, as scheduled,  but tax cuts for the middle class should be phased out over ten years.  Members of the middle class are more likely to be severely impacted by any sharp and immediate increases in taxation.

     President Obama's most pressing problems, however, are (1) that there may too many voters who have lost hope that their conditions will change regardless of who is president, and (2) that there is another group within the middle class which may be satisfied with any person as president who appears to assure that their financial conditions either improves or do not change.  

     Democrats get another chance--maybe their last one--to make a compelling case why both groups should vote, and why they should vote for them.

Deregulations Enhance Uncertainty

       I'm having trouble understanding how fewer regulations lead to more certainty both in the operation of businesses and within the economic system where these businesses are seeking to find certainty?  Many businesses have become like poker players who want to stay in the games, where they have already become big winners, but only if their chips are given double value.  Playing that kind of game certainly makes increasing their winnings more likely.  But it also more likely--if not inevitably--makes more of the other players bigger losers.

       Deregulating is like suggesting that fewer rules and officials increases the chances that football and basketball games will be played more fairly.  While there certainly can be too many rules in a game, such as requiring football linemen to always be a certain number of inches from the line of scrimmage, or requiring the quarterback to not take more than four steps before throwing a pass or handing off the ball.  The rules applying to football now seem about right.   From time to time rules are changed as circumstances justify them.  But the rules aren't changed just because some running backs aren't able to make runs pass the line of scrimmage or some quarterbacks can't complete enough of their passes.

      So far, I have not heard the argument that too many regulations being properly monitored is what caused our financial disaster.  President Obama has said he is willing to review all regulations and make changes where a good case can be made for changing or eliminating them--and already has changes some.  But deregulating so that some businesses can take unfair advantage of either consumers or other businesses is kind of certainty that reasonable people would not consider constructive in an economy struggling to recovery its better days.

     Businesses have never had the certainty that they would make profits--or even survive.  Businesses go our of business somewhere, everyday.  Uncertainty is built into American capitalism.  But now a days, some big businesses want regulations that will guarantee that their teams always score touchdowns, that dropped balls will never be called a fumble, and that they will not be required to play a better game than the competition in order to win.

     When I was a boy, our baseball games often were played in the streets with the balls and bats of other children.  But the boy that owned the bat (a broomstick) and ball (a wormed tennis ball) didn't say that unless we gave him five strikes he was taking his bat and ball home.  Some businesses want five strikes and their right hand touched at first base before they can be called out.  They can say that because they own the bats and balls.

      Republicans say that placing higher taxes on businesses hurt job creators.  But how can that be true?  Businesses say they are refusing to hire more workers, not because they don't have enough money, but because there either are not enough of the kinds of people they need to hire or there is not a sufficient market for more of their products or services.  How then can giving these businesses access to more money by reducing their taxes produce more qualified job applicants and more consumers for their products?  And how can taxing them a little bit more and reducing their profits a little bit change those reasons?

     What kinds of regulations and certainties do businesses want, the kinds that existed before Barack Obama became president--the kinds that caused the Great Recession?  Are these the kinds of regulations and certainties that Republicans are pledging to reinstate?  Overturning regulations intended to prevent the kinds of intentional missteps that caused the Great Recession cannot be justified.  Neither, however, can over-regulating.  

     Who, then, should make decisions about what regulations are appropriate to equitably distribute uncertainty, and fairly serve all classes of Americans?  And by what processes are fair and just regulations most likely to be achieved?  Fair or not, it appears that those who own the bats and balls are most likely to make those decisions.  And whatever decisions they make will be proclaimed also to be good for the rest of us.

     An emerging problem with our American capitalism is that it is operating within a climate of uncertainty reinforced by internal conflicts and contradictions about the importance of propriety, ethics and morality in our society.  Winston Churchill called old Russia "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."  That's beginning to define attitudes, politics and economics in America.

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Identifying and Assessing Obama's Economy

    The claim is being made by Republicans that the present US economy belongs to President Obama.  They're really talking to people who they hope do not know that Obama is dealing with a terrible economy produced by the actions of President George W. Bush:  two unfunded wars (one a war of choice), tax cuts that that were not paid for and which did not produce jobs, an unpaid-for prescription drugs plan and the Great Recession.  Republicans are hoping that lll of these economic missteps have either been either forgotten or never known.   Be that as it may, these are the main elements of the Bush's economy which ended in January 2009

     But let's see what constitutes what Republican are choosing to call "Obama's economy" since January, 2009.  If the present economy is Obama's economy the he certainly could only take credit or blame for those things that are the result of his ideas. 

(1) President Obama inherited Bush's Great Recession. (That was Obama's fault because, knowing what the economic condition of the country was, he still chose to seek the  presidency.)  

(2) He stabilized the banking system and prevented a depression.  (3) He established regulatory reform intended to prevent the same reasons to cause another recession or exacerbate the present one.  

(3) He extended unemployment benefits during the recession.  

(4) He reduced taxes on middle-class workers.  

(5) He pass a health-care law, which even Obama realizes needs fixing.  (He got the best he could get with a shaky super Democratic majority in the Senate.)  

(6) A treaty was signed with the Soviet Union.  

(7 Job loss steadily decreased and eventually has resulted in job gains.  (The unemployment rate remaining at 9.1% reflects that job gains are keeping up with growth of Americans entering the job market.  More jobs are needed to bring that percentage down.  Republicans are trying to make sure that does not happen.  

(8) Obama saved the three American auto companies, saving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers.  

(9) He passed a stimulus plan that created and saved the jobs of over 4 million teachers, fire fighters and policemen and policewomen, though he hoped it had done more.  (Republicans say that the stimulus failed, though they knew it had some success because many of them accepted the money to save jobs in their states.)  

(10) Several Al Caeda leaders were killed, including Osama bin Laden, and Moammar Gadhafi was deposed because of the leadership of Obama.  

(11) The President is trying to solve the nation's short- and long-term economic problems with a rational blend of $4 trillion worth of spending cuts and revenue enhancement.

(12)  President Obama has been willing to compromise: consider tort reform in connection with health-care reform and place entitlements on table in order to address national debt consistent, both consistent with the voters wishes that there be more bipartisanship in Washington and contrary to the wishes of his political base.

     These are only a partial list of the things the President has done and tried to do during the "Obama economy."   And all that Obama has done still has failed to completely rescue the country from the economic wounds inflicted by the Bush Administration.  Most of the people who are still out of work were put out of work by the deeds of  George W. Bush.   Their unemployment is not part of Obama's economy.  And Obama has not started any new wars. 

      However, wealthy people, who were further enriched by the Bush tax cuts, have not had many children fighting in the wars that George W. Bush started.  Wealthy people whose families have not as a group joined fellow Americans on the battlefields of Asia and the Middle East, should feel it their responsibility to support the nation with some of their money during this period of financial crisis.  They should gladly help restore a thriving economy in this country so it can provide jobs and proper care for those children of the poor and middle class who did their part fighting, dying and being injured on those dusty battlefields.  They did it for all Americans.  These wealthy Americans will more than make those surtaxes back in a thriving economy.

     Despite the consistent and often irrational opposition by the Republican Party, the Obama presidency has been quite good so far.  When Republicans say that because of what Obama has achieved--or tried to achieve--they cannot stand four more years of Obama in the White House, they're right:  They can't stand it, but the majority of the American people probably can.

     This economy belongs to Obama only (1) if he caused the economic troubles (He didn't.), or (2) if his attempts to fix the economy had Republican support. (They didn't.), or (3) if the economy--regardless of its condition when Obama became president--got even worse.  (It didn't.)

     If the Super Committee fails to come up with the Big Deal, look of our credit ratings to fall.  And if Republicans gain the White House, expect  ratings to sink to A or B level, and interest rates to skyrocket.

     Despite the "Occupy" movement, Senate Republicans continue with their votes on jobs to scream, "I DON'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!

     Why the media think Obama will be blamed in the 2012 for things he did not cause is either a reflection of their own poor judgement or their low opinion of the judgment of the American voters.  

     Voters may have bad understandings because of media failure to challenge lies,  allowing unchallenged lies, too often, to be perceived as truth.

Raising Cain (A Revision)

 I'm beginning to be concerned about the way Herman Cain is being treated during the controversy about his alleged sexual harassment.  I'm concerned as a black (I learned that from Herman Cain).  I'm concerned for the same reason that many--if not most--women think he is getting his due.  I'll admit, there are some things about which I'm not able to be objective--though in those circumstances I realize that I could be the one that is wrong. 

     I am not aware of every statement that Herman Cain has made related to accusations against him by potentially as many as three women who either worked under him or in his presence as he served in some kind of leadership position.  My reaction has not been to whether he is guilty or not guilty as accused.  My reaction is to the media having rendered him "guilty until found innocent" in Cain's words.

     There are people of various persuasions who are pulling for the women to be telling the truth and others pulling for Cain to be telling the truth.  One or the other is not telling the truth, or both are telling the truth.  From what I have heard, there does not seem to be enough information surfacing to know what the truth is.

     This is what I know.  For some reason two women surfaced to announce that they had been sexual harassed by Herman Cain.  I have heard no reason why these women chose to release that information or otherwise make that assertion.

Did they not like Herman Cain because he is a black American?  Was it because he is a black American conservative?  Was it because it because they do not believe a man who has done such things should ever become President of the United States?  Or was there some other reason?  Regardless of what it was, there was something that motivated their decisions.

     The women want Cain to grant them the privilege to speak out about the alleged sexual harassment.  But why would he do that?  If they are telling the truth, he won't want them to tell it.  And if they are not telling the truth, why would he want them to  lend support to the suggestions that are being promulgated by the media?

     The media is saying that Cain is changing his story.  Well, based on what I have heard, he has.  But the story seemed to change when he was attempting to explain different aspects of the history surrounding the accusations.

     The latest information to surface suggest that during a previous senatorial campaign eight years ago he told his campaign manager that there had been a sexual harassment complaint made against him that might surface as an issue in the campaign.  He did not say he had been guilty of sexual harassment.  The media is treating that information as a confession of guilt.

     This manager ends up in Rick Perry's struggling campaign.  Was he added to the Perry team because he said he had some useful information? Did Perry know about that information before it was released?  Probably not.  He would have been provided a shield of deniability. 

     Cain said that he may have said or did something that someone might have interpreted as sexual harassment, which is possible.  We don't know the details of how the case was resolved.  Was Cain found to be guilty or were the findings inconclusive for some reason?  And if the evidence was conclusive, why did the women settle for merely a reportedly $35, 000.00? 

     A second witness has surfaced who says that he saw the sexual harassment happen, and a third woman who said she was sexually harassed by Cain and started to file a complaint but decides against it.

     I don't know why Herman Cain is receiving persistent attention to his possible involvement with these women, while the media stopped questioning Senator John McCain during his run for the presidency when he said he would answer no more questions about an alleged extra-marital affair.  These two acts are certainly different situations but not different enough in the moral severity to deserve such unequal levels of coverage. 

     What is it that Cain is supposed did?  Was it something he said, something he did or something he wanted to do?

     Was Cain a Republican at the time of the alleged incidents?  Were the women Democrats?  And if they were, was the incident made more objectionable because Cain was a Republican?

     Or was it an arrogance within Cain that made him feel empowered, because of his position, to seek liberties with these women that resulted in confrontations exaggerated because of ideological conflicts between the parties.

     I still have not idea what the truth is.  But neither do the media, though they talk as if Cain is the only player not telling the truth.  Has anybody volunteered to take a  lie-detector test?

     

US Needs Blend of Ideologies

     Sometimes conservatives are right.  There is some merit to their argument that safety nets create dependency by people who might otherwise be self-sufficient if they were so compelled and strove to so be.

     The Republican plan of having Social Security remain as is for those who are 55 years or older may be all right if Social Security for those younger than 55 years was phased out so that younger people become increasingly more responsible for more of their retirement needs.

     For example, a person who is 54 years of age would receive at 65 years of age 96% of expected Social Security and Medical Care coverage and would pay 96% of expected Social Security taxes.  That person will have 11 years to save up enough money to make up the differences in benefits.  They could buy some kind of supplementary insurance with the savings, save it, or invest it..

     A person who is 52 would receive 92% of expected benefits from SS and MC.  SS taxes would be 92% of expected cost.  The person 3 years longer (13 years)  to prepare for reduced benefits.

    A person who is 50 would receive 88% in benefits, pay 88% less in cost and have 5 years longer (11 years) to save for retirement costs.

    A person who is 48 would receive 84%, pay 84% and have 7 years longer to save (17 years).

    Finally, a person who start work at age 22 would pay for 46% of coverage, pay 46% of the cost, and have 47 years to save for retirement.

    This scheme has possibilities if people save, if they know how, where, how much and when to save and if they can anticipate or determine what their retirement needs would be in the future.  

     For wealthy people--many of whom are among those most critical of people who need SS and MC--the uncertainty of those needs is not a problem because most of them have inherited wealth.  Or as Rev. Al Sharpton recently put it: These are people who "were born on third base, and are acting like they hit a triple."

    But for those who must fit retirement plans into the need to live in the present on modest incomes, this is a problem.  How much health and life insurance can a family afford?  How well will children be clothes and fed?  In what kinds of homes and neighborhoods will the family live?  What colleges and universities can the children attend?  How many and what kinds of family vacations will there be?  Must both spouses work?    

     These are just some of the decisions that would affect the kinds of retirements for which people can reasonably prepare.  This can be done.  There are people who are doing it.  But people must have plans for doing it successfully.  High school economics classes could be places where students learn how to make such plans.

     But there seems to be a refusal by most conservatives to realize that not all people have the same financial skills or interests.  They don't have the same families,  parents, spouses, colleagues, associations through organizations, or teachers that can influence their skills, interests and commitments.  For these people a mandatory system of retirement planning is necessary.  Social Security and Medicare both anticipates and addresses those needs.

     Does Social Security tend to make people less independent in providing for their own retirement?  For some people that is true.  For most people, the best we can say is "we don't know."  But enabling people to prepare for their own retirement in a mutual effort with others still seems like a reasonable approach to address that uncertainty.  People pay into pension plans or buy insurance: to address periods of need which may occur at unexpected times and during periods of family uncertainty--like the present.  Social Security is multiple insurance.

     Conservative are right, however, in suggesting that our welfare system tend to promote and encourage dependency by people who have the abilities and talents not only to take care of themselves but also to make significant contributions to our economic, social and political systems.  

      But how can that talent be harnessed?  And how can we identify those who have the potential to become independent, contributing members of society, and distinguish them from those who likely will need our help?  For some people, taking care of the most vulnerable is more economical--and humane--than trying to make everyone financially independent and having them suffer the consequences if they aren't.  Safety nets are important. 

     Unfortunately, too many conservatives have acquired an unChristian-like indifference about those who come upon hard times.  They believe that the conditions of the less fortunate are always their fault, and never the fault of the circumstances which both generate and perpetuate their conditions.   Poor schools and poor teachers, for example, contribute to poor performance as adults, whereas

having the best schools and teachers contribute to success.  A country, therefore, must be guided by a blend of conservative and liberal ideas because its people will always be a blend of those who need help and those who don't.     

      Liberals--and perhaps most conservatives--believe we must prepare those who are most able to be independent, and care enough to help those who are less able so they can experience a quality of life that at least satisfies their desires and basic needs.  Most poor people don't need much to be happy, and those who are not happy with their conditions usually find ways to overcome them.  Many of our most successful people emerged from very humble circumstances.

     Lee Hamilton states it in a recent News column that the American people "don't want big government or small government, but smart government.  They want our political leaders to set ideological purity aside, and just get things done."  For everyone, I might add.  Voters get another chance in 2012 to get it right.

Cain Vote Gets Money Out of Politics

     The presidential campaign of Herman Cain is cause for concern for many members of the Republican Party.  There is the fear by some that, even if Cain somehow wins the Republican nomination, he could not possibly win against President Obama.  Others fear that in a contest against Obama, Cain might actually win.  Such is the nature of the party. 

     Herman Cain would like to be the second black president in the White House.  And some black Americans--maybe even Cain himself--would even welcome the chance to have what they consider a "real black man" there.  Without giving Cain candidacy more credibility than it deserves, though, we must give him credit for having run well, thus far.      

     The idea has been floated that the Mitt Romney campaign encouraged his supporters to vote for Cain in the Florida straw vote, hoping a substantial Cain victory would create a ground swell of support for Cain, and, given the choice of Romney or Cain, conservative Republicans would choose Romney.  And the fact that Republicans are using their control in state governments to pass legislation that suppresss opposition votes suggest they certainly would not be averse to using unscrupulous means to attain a politician advantage over each other.

      But whatever is the political fate of Herman Cain--and regardless of why it has happened--he is currently making a serious run for the Republican nomination for the presidency.  The main question concerning the viability of Cain's candidacy seems to be whether his intelligence and management skills can offset limited political skills and limited awareness of worldwide circumstances.

      Cain is a conservative Republican.  And the meaning of conservatism does not change just because the person espousing the ideology is black.  The only difference between black and white conservatives is that one can be reasonably sure that black-conservative opposition to liberals has nothing to do with race.     

      Cain has said that black Americans have been brainwashed, and many black people have been offended by the comment.  Some of that feeling may be due to the fact that there is some truth to it.  Certainly, many black people vote based on a trust they have in black leaders who are advocates--often paid advocates--for the Democratic Party.  By that definition white voters are similarly "brainwashed."

     The leanings of Black Americans toward the Democratic Party began and evolved through the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, which led to Civil Rights Laws in 1948.  That confidence in the Democratic Party grew under the leadership of the Democratic Party during the 1960s, as black Americans demanded--and finally achieved--many rights due to us as American citizens.          

     The fact is, however, that black Americans don't know what they could have achieved had their votes not been pledged to Democrats.  Black people never forced Democrats and Republicans to bid for their votes with promises of fairness.  Both black voters are swing votes that perhaps could have force attention by both parties to the issues of social and economic justice.  But present congressional Republican aren't even inspiring confidence among fellow Republicans.

     Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan seems to have merits, not necessarily in the numbers but potentially in the concept or model  The numbers may not be the right mix.  Perhaps they should be 7-8-9, 5-10-15 or some other combination.  The merits of the model would ultimately be evaluated in terms, not merely of its simplicity, but of its potential to lead to consensus on taxation and spending in a manner that  grows the economy and reduces--and eventually eliminates--the number of people who are too poor to pay taxes.  Such a simple plan would not necessarily, as is often claimed, eliminate Social Security and Medicare, as national safety nets.  The core 9-9-9 plan--or whatever numbers it contains--would not become law as presented by Cain during the primary debates.  It would be debated and amended by both houses of Congress before a presidential signature makes the plans law.

     A political candidate cannot be liberal and conservative at the same time, as some black Americans think Cain should be, and which Mitt Romney is trying to shed the image of trying to be).  When Cain says that Wall Street protesters should not blame Wall Street but themselves, which is the conservative message, he did not mean they should blame themselves for not blaming President Obama, which is also a conservative message.  But he also did not mean those protesters who have done the right things but are victims of present economic conditions.  

     He did mean those who had not applied themselves sufficiently in school to prepare themselves for present and emerging job markets, and I would add those who were eligible but did not vote for Democrats during the 2010 elections.  But Americans cannot help if we are in denial of the extents to which certain malfunctions exist within many American families and communities, and within the psychic of many Americans. 

     Conservative Americans who gave Republicans control over Congress in 2010 did not send them to Washington to govern the way they have so far--and they did not campaign that they would.  The support of Herman Cain could just be a message to Republican members of Congress that constituents disapprove of their representatives representing Grover Norquist and not them.  Many of them are  sending a message to congressional Republicans about the 2012 election results unless they change their acts in Washington.

     Cain justifies his 9-9-9 plan by contending that math suggesting it won't work is flawed and that opponents don't understand the plan because they are confusing apples with oranges.  But distorting the truth and making people believe what is not true has been a recent Republican strategy.  Why shouldn't Republicans try it on each other?

     Meanwhile, the liberal media are criticizing Cain and his 9-9-9 plan as if they fear he could actually become president.  Or maybe that's what they would like conservative Republicans to believe is the case.  Anyway, he is being criticized more than--and including by--those who have no plan.

     More importantly, though, a vote for Cain might help get money out of politics.