Considering where Inspection is published, this should be quite controversial…
Look, I don’t like the guy. His smile alone is sleazy in a way that makes Clarence Thomas seem a straight arrow. But as far as all the hubbub, Bubs, I don’t give what comes out of the south end of a moose going north about what Herman Cain may or may not have done so many years ago. Just like I don’t give a damn about Monica, or pictures of someone’s crotch, or…
I’m taking a stand here: I am %$#@! tired of all this dredging of sludge out of the past with the absolute intent of bringing someone down. There are a few exceptions, like Clarence Thomas. As someone who was to have a lot to do with shaping the law of the land I would have wanted those who were to vote on him to make damn sure he agreed: in writing, that he recuse himself from any cases remotely connected to to sexual harassment. If he violated that trust impeachment would be spelled out as the price. Then Dems would stick to their guns.
I know, that’s in the alternate version of political planet Earth, but that’s beside the point. We’re having a “if Ken ruled the world” moment here.
Frightening, isn’t it?
But, honestly, what Herm did with, and to, these women is between them, lawyers and the courts. If ever rehashed legally and then convicted, well maybe that might play some part in the political landscape. Otherwise… sigh…. why do I have to type it? …it’s innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty by accusation. Especially not “guilty by whatever we can come dredge up from his past.”
Rush Limbaugh claims Democrats invented this kind of nonsense, when it comes to sexual harassment. Of course, like everything else that comes out of any serial liar’s mouth, this is provably untrue. Or are you saying the whole Bill Clinton nonsense never happened.
You’re provably 99.9% wrong, Limbaugh.
Now, please, don’t misunderstand: I understand that harassment is a very important issue. And if these were more current accusations I might agree with it being part of the campaign debates and discussions more. Not much more… but maybe a tiny bit. I just think we live in a society where accusations, even those settled out of court, shouldn’t dominate all the news, wipe out more important issues and have to be ruled by “innocent until proven guilty.”
So let’s not go to the “but he settled” balderdash. “Settling” only proves the court case would be more problematic than it would have been worth. I’m not happy that our court system does this: it should be about innocence or guilt. Not money. Indeed I believe all cases should go to court, and all defendants should receive top notch representation: at our expense. We pay for the prosecution. Why should the State support only one side of the justice system? It’s no more fair to make everyone: including the innocent, pay all the bills than it would be to make victims pay for the prosecution.
Once guilt or innocence is proved maybe we can make whomever lost pay back. Pay back something at least. Indeed I think there should be a heavy price for those who bring false accusations, just like the guilty need to pay something for what they did: and not just in time served. And if the State had a weak case that they pursued anyway they need to do something to make up for time lost, jobs lost, income lost, reputations lost… all the aforementioned and more.
Destroying a person proven innocent, or even one who settled out of court if we must do that kind of “justice,” should not be an option. Never. Ever.
For example: I think those who relentlessly pursued Bill Clinton: trying to find anything on him or Hillary; no matter how absurd, that might stick to the legal wall, need to pay something for the hunt. From Socks the Cat being accused of passing on secret messages, to the proven bogus Whitewater; a lot of money and time was wasted on diddly squat. All this time bin Laden was plotting.
They are like the drivers in a heist where people are murdered. They may not know exactly what would have happened, but certainly they had have realized they might be endangering the nation by facilitating the holding of partisan machine guns to the nation’s head.
The whole damn thing, in my opinion, was politically driven.
Just like it is now,
I think the Herman Cain thing, right now, is too. Not necessarily those who accused Cain back then. But now , when it comes to the pols and pundits using this for political gain… I repeat “now” it’s all about bringing someone down. If it was about something else he would have entered the race with these legal dogs biting: not nipping at his heels months later when his fortunes rise to the top of the extra icky Republican 2012 candidate cesspool.
Why did he settle out of court? Well, people settle out of court for many reasons: often because proving themselves innocent would make the whole case so public that they would be assumed guilty by those who otherwise might vote for them, or keep them employed (I’m sure at least one of these, if not both, this was part of Cain’s reckoning.) But almost as big a reason: sometimes bigger, it’s “settle out of court or spend tons of money crossing state lines back and forth for multiple hearings, lawyer fees, loss of time, business, clients and jobs.”
The idea that settling out of court makes it most likely they were guilty is nonsense. It’s too damn convenient: and always assumed by those who have the most to gain from the public humiliation of another.
Can you imagine a child going to a principal in the 60s and being told, “I will spank you with my metal paddle every day for what someone said you did unless your parents pay me a thousand dollars.”
That’s the kind of “justice” system we have.
But, putting that all aside for a moment, the main reason I don’t give a bucket of pig puke about what Cain did, or didn’t do, is I’m damn tired of this kind of politics. I think his inexperience and tendency to put forth overly simplistic solutions are far more important than any of this crud. I think Bill Clinton’s support of NAFTA far more damning than Monica or any of the other accusations were.
Can we just skip the, “But Clinton had so many people killed…” moment here? I swear that list just gets slightly rewritten and applied to whomever is in office. The sad thing is if we ever do have a mass murderer as president, or have had, it will probably always been masked by that kind of nonsense.
Can you imagine Abe Lincoln in the political climate we have these days? A wife with severe mental issues. Depression. Hinting at sympathies with both slavery and abolitionists? He never would have made it into office.
Oh, I know what many of our forefathers, and Abe, went through, yellow journalists accused others of, was far worse. But everyone knew it was just the kind of over the top rhetoric and accusations that existed at the bottom of the political pool back then. These days we take it, oh, so seriously, this politics by smear mode we’re in. Cain’s absurd economic plan gets shoved aside because his relations with women many years ago are…. more important?
I am complaining less about the rhetoric: as septic tank swill as it is, than I am how seriously we take it. Suddenly everything is about Herman Cain and what he may or may not have done eons ago. The chatter dominates everything as the important issues train is once again derailed.
So when it comes to this Cain stuff, for now I don’t give a damn. Pursue it legally… or not. But we have important debates to deal with in this country. Stop wasting our friggin time.
During the Kennedy administration there was a gentleman’s rule of sorts that the personal was pretty much 100% out of bounds. Now maybe that’s too damn far, but this “the personal is the most important, and sometimes the only thing that matters?” That’s worse.
And our nation is worse off for it.
Let’s get back to the issues, folks.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved
Ken – if I remember correctly this was not your position about the Priests who molested boys (and girls too, why don’t we ever hear about the girls?), when accusations were “taken care of” internally by moving Priests and or making monetary settlements with the parents.
The reason this is important now is not entirely because Herman did these things, but because now, after the facts caused his company to view them a serious enough problem to pay out the cold hard cash, he’s whining, “someone’s out to smear me!”. “Rick Perry’s a tattletale!”
If he had led with his statement “During my time with the National Restaurant Assoc., allegations were made which I still say are unfounded, however the association came to a settlement with those women” or some such thing. Then at least he would have been honest.
Remember – this is after the fact, and he knew this information was now out in the open. To claim 1st that it didn’t happen, and 2nd that he didn’t know about the settlement makes him a liar. To make his complaints about the leak a forefront of his campaign, makes him a whiner.
Good question why we don’t hear about the girls.
I don’t remember exactly what I said when, but I absolutely think any molesting should have been pursued legally to the full extent. Once again, if money was paid and promises made people should live up to that.
I hate that system. But it is the system we have.
Within the Church I think that’s a bit different. We’re not talking politics, we’re talking a huge organization that pushes itself as a moral arbiter. On the public stage, running for office, a lot of stuff is made, over inflated and used for political purposes. meanwhile those priests weren’t running for higher positions, and even if they were you don’t have Karl Rove, or FOX, pushing scandals with the express intent of derailing them.
The kind of politics Rove and such play keep real scandals from getting traction. I’m sure that’s intentional.