Posts
I have two items for this post:
1. Andy Griffith has passed away. I enjoyed watching Andy Griffith on The Andy Griffith Show, Matlock, Roots: The Next Generation, Face in the Crowd, the commercials supporting Obamacare, etc. You can read some of my posts where I talk about Andy Griffith here.
2. Jonathan Krohn, the teenager who wowed C-PAC in 2009, is no longer a conservative. Here's
an excellent article about this, which also has a video in which Krohn
pontificates about the Republican Party (but I don't know how old that
video is, since Krohn sounds somewhat like a fiscal conservative
there).
I wrote about Krohn in 2009 in my posts here and here.
He's always struck me as highly intelligent, even when he was a
conservative (not that I have ever met him personally). His defection
from conservatism probably occurred at a higher level than my own, since
it coincided with him reading a lot of philosophy. (I've read some of
the philosophers he has read, but not others, plus my own defection from
conservatism was due largely to my own personal frustration with the
American health care system.)
In the area of political analysis, he usually impressed me. You
can watch his political commentary on the video in that article, and you
can tell he's an insightful observer. He brings philosophy into the
discussion, talks about political parties, argues that the Ron Paul wing
of the Republican Party has negative effects, etc.
In terms of policy analysis when he was a conservative, he was hit-or-miss. For example, in his article, What's So Bad About Universal Health Care,
he made a good point when he noted that Obamacare's public option
(which no longer exists) would put private health insurance companies
out of business and thus cost jobs. But he did not provide a
substantive critique of universal health care but said in response to
the argument that universal health care is common in Europe and thus
should be adopted in America, "If, for example, Denmark, Sweden, Great
Britain, and others instituted a law that said everyone must jump off a
bridge, would we institute the law in America also?" He did not probe
why many Europeans were satisfied with their health care system, nor did
it seem to dawn on him that America's health care system has serious
problems of its own (or such was my impression from this article, and I
could be mistaken). I was disappointed by that article because I
expected more sophistication on Jonathan Krohn's part.
But now
he's not a conservative. He doesn't regard himself as a liberal,
either, but as Jonathan Krohn. I have to admire him for giving up his
celebrity status to be true to himself.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
This Is Herman Cain 3
In my latest reading of This Is Herman Cain, Herman Cain
talked about how he saved Godfather's Pizza from bankruptcy as President
of Godfather's (essentially, he highlighted to the public what
Godfather's was known for----it's quality----rather than trying to be
like Domino's, which was known more for its delivery), how he and a
friend bought Godfather's from Pillsbury (with the help of loans), and
how Herman Cain challenged President Bill Clinton in a forum about
Clinton's health care plan and the cost that Cain felt it would impose
on restaurant owners.
What I want to highlight in this post, though, is Cain's discussion of the Federal Reserve. Cain is unapologetic about the fact that he worked for the Federal Reserve, and he does not agree with the Republican Presidential candidates who want to abolish it (though he says that he does not care if it's audited). Cain supports the Federal Reserve because he believes that it regulates the money supply, and he does not think that the money supply in the U.S. and the world would self-regulate without the Federal Reserve. At the same time, Cain believes that the Federal Reserve should be reformed because it over-extends itself----as (for example) it seeks to manage unemployment. Cain states on page 84 that "you cannot manage unemployment, price stability, and our currency with one arrow, and they had multiple targets but only one arrow."
I can't say that I entirely understand Cain's argument, but he does appear to challenge an idea that is promulgated by such figures as Ron Paul: that the Federal Reserve causes inflation by printing a lot of money, and that the money supply will be restricted (and thus inflation will be low) without the Federal Reserve (or so I understand Paul's position). Cain's point seems to be that the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, and that all bets are off were it not to exist. Ron Paul probably believes that other things are necessary to control inflation besides the Federal Reserve, such as the gold standard. I'll be reading his book, End the Fed, sometime in the future, so that will provide me with more of an opportunity to learn about his perspective.
What I want to highlight in this post, though, is Cain's discussion of the Federal Reserve. Cain is unapologetic about the fact that he worked for the Federal Reserve, and he does not agree with the Republican Presidential candidates who want to abolish it (though he says that he does not care if it's audited). Cain supports the Federal Reserve because he believes that it regulates the money supply, and he does not think that the money supply in the U.S. and the world would self-regulate without the Federal Reserve. At the same time, Cain believes that the Federal Reserve should be reformed because it over-extends itself----as (for example) it seeks to manage unemployment. Cain states on page 84 that "you cannot manage unemployment, price stability, and our currency with one arrow, and they had multiple targets but only one arrow."
I can't say that I entirely understand Cain's argument, but he does appear to challenge an idea that is promulgated by such figures as Ron Paul: that the Federal Reserve causes inflation by printing a lot of money, and that the money supply will be restricted (and thus inflation will be low) without the Federal Reserve (or so I understand Paul's position). Cain's point seems to be that the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, and that all bets are off were it not to exist. Ron Paul probably believes that other things are necessary to control inflation besides the Federal Reserve, such as the gold standard. I'll be reading his book, End the Fed, sometime in the future, so that will provide me with more of an opportunity to learn about his perspective.
Pagels Tells the Story of Justin Martyr
I'm continuing my way through Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan. Over a decade ago, I read Pagels' Adam, Eve, and the Serpent for a class, which talked a lot about Augustine. As I read Pagels in The Origin of Satan
talk about the lives of Justin Martyr and Origen, I was reminded of how
compelling of a storyteller Pagels is in her writing. I felt as if I
were watching a riveting documentary that went into historical figures
in depth, described their historical significance, and highlighted the
tensions they faced (within themselves and with others). (Think American Experience.)
I'll talk some about Pagels' summary of the life of Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century C.E. Justin came to Rome from Asia Minor specifically to study philosophy, and he was impressed at the peace that he saw in the Christians who were torn by wild beasts in the amphitheater. Justin was becoming discouraged as he studied philosophy (i.e., Stoicism, the Peripatetics, etc.) with teachers. He encountered a Christian old man who told him that his mind was degenerate due to its infestation by demonic powers, and that Justin needed spiritual illumination to reach true understanding. Justin came to agree with the old man on this, and he was baptized. As Justin looked back at the Platonic cliches that he spouted to the old man, he "realized that his objections to the old man's arguments derived simply from his blind acceptance of Plato's authority----not from any conviction of experience of his own" (page 117).
Justin, who was raised as a pagan by pagan parents, began to see the world in dramatically different ways after he became a Christian. He believed that the gods whose statues he saw on a regular basis were actually demons, and he could appeal to the moral degeneracy around him to support his view that there was a strong demonic influence on society----moral degeneracy such as abandoning children and sodomizing the young. Justin found the so-called gods to be sinister demons who terrorized people to receive worship. Justin felt as if he were seeing the world as it truly was----as a spiritual battleground where people needed Christ to be free from bondage.
Justin wrote to the emperor and other rulers to protest the mistreatment of Christians, including a Christian aristocratic woman who wanted to divorce her morally-degenerate non-Christian husband, and her husband told the authorities she was a Christian as a result. As Pagels notes, the rulers most likely archived Justin's letters and did not read them, but, had Marcus Aurelius read them, he would have considered Justin's thoughts to be "obscenely grandiose" (page 126). Marcus, after all, believed that self-control and peace of mind could be attained through philosophy, which Justin thought was inadequate by itself. Marcus also did not have a dualistic view of the world, in which there are evil demons, for Marcus thought that all spirit beings, even the chaotic ones, "are actually a part of a single cosmic order" (Pagels' words on page 126). On a related note, the pagan Celsus, who attacked Christianity, viewed the Christian belief in the devil to be quite absurd.
I really like it when teachers and writers get into the personal stories of historical figures. Pagels does that quite well, in my opinion. My discussion doesn't do her storytelling justice!
I'll talk some about Pagels' summary of the life of Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century C.E. Justin came to Rome from Asia Minor specifically to study philosophy, and he was impressed at the peace that he saw in the Christians who were torn by wild beasts in the amphitheater. Justin was becoming discouraged as he studied philosophy (i.e., Stoicism, the Peripatetics, etc.) with teachers. He encountered a Christian old man who told him that his mind was degenerate due to its infestation by demonic powers, and that Justin needed spiritual illumination to reach true understanding. Justin came to agree with the old man on this, and he was baptized. As Justin looked back at the Platonic cliches that he spouted to the old man, he "realized that his objections to the old man's arguments derived simply from his blind acceptance of Plato's authority----not from any conviction of experience of his own" (page 117).
Justin, who was raised as a pagan by pagan parents, began to see the world in dramatically different ways after he became a Christian. He believed that the gods whose statues he saw on a regular basis were actually demons, and he could appeal to the moral degeneracy around him to support his view that there was a strong demonic influence on society----moral degeneracy such as abandoning children and sodomizing the young. Justin found the so-called gods to be sinister demons who terrorized people to receive worship. Justin felt as if he were seeing the world as it truly was----as a spiritual battleground where people needed Christ to be free from bondage.
Justin wrote to the emperor and other rulers to protest the mistreatment of Christians, including a Christian aristocratic woman who wanted to divorce her morally-degenerate non-Christian husband, and her husband told the authorities she was a Christian as a result. As Pagels notes, the rulers most likely archived Justin's letters and did not read them, but, had Marcus Aurelius read them, he would have considered Justin's thoughts to be "obscenely grandiose" (page 126). Marcus, after all, believed that self-control and peace of mind could be attained through philosophy, which Justin thought was inadequate by itself. Marcus also did not have a dualistic view of the world, in which there are evil demons, for Marcus thought that all spirit beings, even the chaotic ones, "are actually a part of a single cosmic order" (Pagels' words on page 126). On a related note, the pagan Celsus, who attacked Christianity, viewed the Christian belief in the devil to be quite absurd.
I really like it when teachers and writers get into the personal stories of historical figures. Pagels does that quite well, in my opinion. My discussion doesn't do her storytelling justice!
Monday, July 2, 2012
This Is Herman Cain 2
In my latest reading of This Is Herman Cain, Herman Cain
talks about meeting the woman who would become his wife (he says that
she didn't think he was all that cool at first), his education, and his
various jobs.
I was interested in Herman Cain's perspective on such issues as racism, civil rights, and discrimination. Cain acknowledges that he was the beneficiary of the civil rights movement, for it made more employment opportunities available to him. He also talks about discrimination that he faced on one occasion in the workplace, as others were being promoted whereas he was not. But he says that he overcame that discrimination when he talked to his boss, learned that he needed to get a master's degree, and went for it even though his boss didn't think he'd be successful. I'm not sure if that technically counts as "discrimination", however, since the boss's problem did not (at least on the surface) appear to be Herman Cain's race, but rather his need for further qualifications. But Herman refers to it as an example of how he overcame a barrier. On the issue of being denied opportunities, I liked what Herman Cain said on page 35 about how he was denied admission to the University of Georgia because it "chose to keep enrollment of black students to a minimum", and yet Herman's daughter Melanie years later attended and graduated from the University of Georgia. Herman says, "I suspect her decision [to attend the University of Georgia] had something to do with an option I had not enjoyed."
I enjoyed Herman Cain's stories about working at Burger King. Herman went to Burger King's after being a vice-president at Pillsbury's because he wanted a challenge. And, as a Burger King boss, he had to deal with challenges. First, on one occasion, when a Burger King worker accidentally disrupted a piece of the equipment during a busy lunch hour, and hamburger patties were coming out undercooked or not cooked at all, Herman Cain had to think fast, especially with the long lines. Herman had the workers fix a bunch of chicken and fish sandwiches, and he told people lining up for the drive-through about the problem. Herman narrates on page 55 that "By the time the broiler was up and running, we had sold out of the chicken and fish sandwiches."
Second, Herman was told that he had to increase sales and profits, yet he had no control over prices or items on the menu. So how would he increase sales and profits? Herman did so by having the workers at the counter look each customer in the eye and smile. Herman also says on page 58: "The reason I did so well in running Burger King's Philadelphia region is that I treated people like people and the culture at Burger King was intimidation, fear, and screaming, tactics to which I do not subscribe. I believe in telling people when they're doing something right."
Third, Herman had to deal with resentment from those who feared he would deprive a Burger King veteran of a regional manager position. Herman was tested and he passed the test, and he became friends with the person testing him. The reason that this stood out to me was that I thought about how hard it must be to work in an environment where people are trying to undermine you. Herman's faith in God and his steadfast work ethic got him through, though!
I was interested in Herman Cain's perspective on such issues as racism, civil rights, and discrimination. Cain acknowledges that he was the beneficiary of the civil rights movement, for it made more employment opportunities available to him. He also talks about discrimination that he faced on one occasion in the workplace, as others were being promoted whereas he was not. But he says that he overcame that discrimination when he talked to his boss, learned that he needed to get a master's degree, and went for it even though his boss didn't think he'd be successful. I'm not sure if that technically counts as "discrimination", however, since the boss's problem did not (at least on the surface) appear to be Herman Cain's race, but rather his need for further qualifications. But Herman refers to it as an example of how he overcame a barrier. On the issue of being denied opportunities, I liked what Herman Cain said on page 35 about how he was denied admission to the University of Georgia because it "chose to keep enrollment of black students to a minimum", and yet Herman's daughter Melanie years later attended and graduated from the University of Georgia. Herman says, "I suspect her decision [to attend the University of Georgia] had something to do with an option I had not enjoyed."
I enjoyed Herman Cain's stories about working at Burger King. Herman went to Burger King's after being a vice-president at Pillsbury's because he wanted a challenge. And, as a Burger King boss, he had to deal with challenges. First, on one occasion, when a Burger King worker accidentally disrupted a piece of the equipment during a busy lunch hour, and hamburger patties were coming out undercooked or not cooked at all, Herman Cain had to think fast, especially with the long lines. Herman had the workers fix a bunch of chicken and fish sandwiches, and he told people lining up for the drive-through about the problem. Herman narrates on page 55 that "By the time the broiler was up and running, we had sold out of the chicken and fish sandwiches."
Second, Herman was told that he had to increase sales and profits, yet he had no control over prices or items on the menu. So how would he increase sales and profits? Herman did so by having the workers at the counter look each customer in the eye and smile. Herman also says on page 58: "The reason I did so well in running Burger King's Philadelphia region is that I treated people like people and the culture at Burger King was intimidation, fear, and screaming, tactics to which I do not subscribe. I believe in telling people when they're doing something right."
Third, Herman had to deal with resentment from those who feared he would deprive a Burger King veteran of a regional manager position. Herman was tested and he passed the test, and he became friends with the person testing him. The reason that this stood out to me was that I thought about how hard it must be to work in an environment where people are trying to undermine you. Herman's faith in God and his steadfast work ethic got him through, though!
Originating from Within Factionalism
I started Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan.
In what I have read so far, Pagels chronicles the development of Satan within the Hebrew Bible. In Numbers 22:22, the angel who stands in the way of Balaam and his donkey is called Balaam's Satan, or adversary. Here, a Satan is an instrument of God, not an adversary against God. In the Book of Job, the Satan is a kind of "roving intelligence agent" (Pagels' words) spying on people on God's behalf; while the Satan in Job takes on more of an adversarial role (i.e., he incites God against Job), he still works for God. According to Pagels, it was during Israel's post-exilic period that Satan became more adversarial, one who was believed to cause division and destruction, apparently without a redemptive purpose. In Zechariah 3, Satan is one who seeks to obstruct God's agenda in post-exilic Israel. For Pagels, Satan comes to serve a sociological purpose within the factionalism of Israel----to affirm one side (the returning exiles) and to stigmatize the other (the Jews who remained in Israel during the exile and did not care for the returning exiles' restoration project).
Pagels' focus is on the sociological function of Satan within the context of factionalism----between post-exilic Jews, and also between Jews and Christians. On pages 48-49, Pagels refers to three stories about the origins of Satan. The first story is the one that many of us heard: that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God. The second story is based on Genesis 6 and highlights the angels who left heaven, mated with human women, and produced demonic giants who polluted the earth. The third story appears in the apocryphal Life of Adam and Eve (14:3), and it presents Satan as refusing to worship Adam because Satan thought that he was more glorious than the newly-created man. Pagels contends that these three stories have something in common: they depict Satan, not as an outsider, but rather as an intimate enemy----one who came from God's ranks. For Pagels, this would fit Satan playing a role within Jewish factionalism, in which people from the same people-group were hostile to one another, as intimate enemies.
I've only read fifty pages of this book so far, so my criticism may be nullified as I read on. But I wish that Pagels cited the primary sources for the story that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God. She says that such a story was based on Isaiah 14, but there's no evidence that the rebelling being there was considered to be Satan, per se. There were ancient Near Eastern stories about a deity trying to elevate himself within the pantheon, and Isaiah 14 could be referring to that sort of thing, not so much the sort of story that we encounter in John Milton's Paradise Lost.
In what I have read so far, Pagels chronicles the development of Satan within the Hebrew Bible. In Numbers 22:22, the angel who stands in the way of Balaam and his donkey is called Balaam's Satan, or adversary. Here, a Satan is an instrument of God, not an adversary against God. In the Book of Job, the Satan is a kind of "roving intelligence agent" (Pagels' words) spying on people on God's behalf; while the Satan in Job takes on more of an adversarial role (i.e., he incites God against Job), he still works for God. According to Pagels, it was during Israel's post-exilic period that Satan became more adversarial, one who was believed to cause division and destruction, apparently without a redemptive purpose. In Zechariah 3, Satan is one who seeks to obstruct God's agenda in post-exilic Israel. For Pagels, Satan comes to serve a sociological purpose within the factionalism of Israel----to affirm one side (the returning exiles) and to stigmatize the other (the Jews who remained in Israel during the exile and did not care for the returning exiles' restoration project).
Pagels' focus is on the sociological function of Satan within the context of factionalism----between post-exilic Jews, and also between Jews and Christians. On pages 48-49, Pagels refers to three stories about the origins of Satan. The first story is the one that many of us heard: that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God. The second story is based on Genesis 6 and highlights the angels who left heaven, mated with human women, and produced demonic giants who polluted the earth. The third story appears in the apocryphal Life of Adam and Eve (14:3), and it presents Satan as refusing to worship Adam because Satan thought that he was more glorious than the newly-created man. Pagels contends that these three stories have something in common: they depict Satan, not as an outsider, but rather as an intimate enemy----one who came from God's ranks. For Pagels, this would fit Satan playing a role within Jewish factionalism, in which people from the same people-group were hostile to one another, as intimate enemies.
I've only read fifty pages of this book so far, so my criticism may be nullified as I read on. But I wish that Pagels cited the primary sources for the story that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God. She says that such a story was based on Isaiah 14, but there's no evidence that the rebelling being there was considered to be Satan, per se. There were ancient Near Eastern stories about a deity trying to elevate himself within the pantheon, and Isaiah 14 could be referring to that sort of thing, not so much the sort of story that we encounter in John Milton's Paradise Lost.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Miserable Comforters!
At church this morning, the sermon was about how we can find comfort
from Jesus, who wants to free us from fear, and how we should try to
bring comfort to others.
As the pastor said, one way to comfort others is to listen to them. Maybe it's a good idea to give advice or words of comfort, but the problem there is that the person seeking to comfort someone else may say the wrong thing. See here and here, or the Book of Job.
As the pastor said, one way to comfort others is to listen to them. Maybe it's a good idea to give advice or words of comfort, but the problem there is that the person seeking to comfort someone else may say the wrong thing. See here and here, or the Book of Job.
This Is Herman Cain 1
I started Herman Cain's This Is Herman Cain: My Journey to the White House.
I didn't care much for the introduction because it came across to me as pompous chest-thumping on the part of Herman Cain, as Cain portrays his performance in a debate as a dramatic redefinition of campaign history and dogmatically foretells that he will take the oath of office as President in January 2013. I had to laugh when he said on page 5 that people told him that they were impressed that he didn't pretend to "have all the information----that [he] didn't pretend [to] have a plan for Afghanistan." Yeah, but it would be nice if a candidate for President at least knew something about Libya or the Right to Return, and did not regurgitate the banal line of "I'll surround myself with the right people and make a decision."
I loved the first chapter, though, when Herman Cain talked about his family, particularly his father. His father comes across as a likable, intelligent, hard-working guy. I particularly liked the story about how Herman's father challenged his sons to a race. Herman says that he doesn't remember who won, but that "It was just so much fun----my brother and I running as fast as we could and my dad just chugging up the street" (page 19).
I'd like to make a comment on Herman's story and how it relates to his political philosophy. On page 18, Herman Cain says: "And both of our parents taught us not to think that the government owed us something. They didn't teach us to be mad at this country. They would always say to us: 'If you want something, just work hard enough, focus on it, and guess what? You make it happen!" That appears to be Herman Cain's philosophy: self-reliance and personal responsibility. And his advice on looking forward rather than backward, being a CEO of Self, and working to come up with a plan to make your dreams a reality is probably sound.
But, from Herman's story, I read that his father Luther got help from others. The Cains lived in "the Projects" before they moved into a house. Luther Cain's boss, R.W. Woodruff of Coca-Cola, generously gave Luther some Coca-Cola stock. And Woodruff helped other people, as when in 1961 he told the University of Gerogia to admit two African-American students, and he had the clout to do so because "Coca-Cola was probably the largest corporation in Atlanta at that time" (page 16).
This is not to suggest that Luther did not advance through hard work, for, as Herman says on page 15, "Dad worked all three jobs until he could make it off two jobs; then he worked those two jobs until he could make it off of that one job." But, in my opinion, it should not be considered shameful to receive help from others, including the government.
In my latest reading, on page 25, Cain talks about the Civil Rights movement. He says that he was too young to be involved in the Freedom Rides and sit-ins, and that he focused on going to school and staying out of trouble, rather than going downtown and engaging in the sit-ins. Cain says, "Dad always said, 'Stay out of trouble,' and we did."
Lawrence O'Donnell grills Herman Cain about this in his interview here. Herman says there that he probably would have participated in the sit-ins had he been a college student, but he was a high-school student at the time and his dad didn't want him to be arrested. O'Donnell then says that Cain was a college student during the Civil Rights movement and sat on the sidelines.
I can't judge Herman Cain over this (as if it's even my place to do so). Granted, I admire those who put their lives and careers on the line in their fight for equality, but I can understand why there were African-Americans who chose not to do so and focused on going about their everyday business to support themselves and their families.
I didn't care much for the introduction because it came across to me as pompous chest-thumping on the part of Herman Cain, as Cain portrays his performance in a debate as a dramatic redefinition of campaign history and dogmatically foretells that he will take the oath of office as President in January 2013. I had to laugh when he said on page 5 that people told him that they were impressed that he didn't pretend to "have all the information----that [he] didn't pretend [to] have a plan for Afghanistan." Yeah, but it would be nice if a candidate for President at least knew something about Libya or the Right to Return, and did not regurgitate the banal line of "I'll surround myself with the right people and make a decision."
I loved the first chapter, though, when Herman Cain talked about his family, particularly his father. His father comes across as a likable, intelligent, hard-working guy. I particularly liked the story about how Herman's father challenged his sons to a race. Herman says that he doesn't remember who won, but that "It was just so much fun----my brother and I running as fast as we could and my dad just chugging up the street" (page 19).
I'd like to make a comment on Herman's story and how it relates to his political philosophy. On page 18, Herman Cain says: "And both of our parents taught us not to think that the government owed us something. They didn't teach us to be mad at this country. They would always say to us: 'If you want something, just work hard enough, focus on it, and guess what? You make it happen!" That appears to be Herman Cain's philosophy: self-reliance and personal responsibility. And his advice on looking forward rather than backward, being a CEO of Self, and working to come up with a plan to make your dreams a reality is probably sound.
But, from Herman's story, I read that his father Luther got help from others. The Cains lived in "the Projects" before they moved into a house. Luther Cain's boss, R.W. Woodruff of Coca-Cola, generously gave Luther some Coca-Cola stock. And Woodruff helped other people, as when in 1961 he told the University of Gerogia to admit two African-American students, and he had the clout to do so because "Coca-Cola was probably the largest corporation in Atlanta at that time" (page 16).
This is not to suggest that Luther did not advance through hard work, for, as Herman says on page 15, "Dad worked all three jobs until he could make it off two jobs; then he worked those two jobs until he could make it off of that one job." But, in my opinion, it should not be considered shameful to receive help from others, including the government.
In my latest reading, on page 25, Cain talks about the Civil Rights movement. He says that he was too young to be involved in the Freedom Rides and sit-ins, and that he focused on going to school and staying out of trouble, rather than going downtown and engaging in the sit-ins. Cain says, "Dad always said, 'Stay out of trouble,' and we did."
Lawrence O'Donnell grills Herman Cain about this in his interview here. Herman says there that he probably would have participated in the sit-ins had he been a college student, but he was a high-school student at the time and his dad didn't want him to be arrested. O'Donnell then says that Cain was a college student during the Civil Rights movement and sat on the sidelines.
I can't judge Herman Cain over this (as if it's even my place to do so). Granted, I admire those who put their lives and careers on the line in their fight for equality, but I can understand why there were African-Americans who chose not to do so and focused on going about their everyday business to support themselves and their families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)