Herman Cain accuser analysis

On Friday the lawyer for the “sexual harassment” accuser made various statements to the media. Given that I definitively debunked the Al Gore accuser a while back, I think it is only fair to analyze these recent Herman Cain accusations as well.

In 1999, I was retained by a female employee of the National Restaurant Association concerning several instances of sexual harassment by the then-CEO. She made a complaint in good-faith . . .

He spontaneously denies that the complaint was made in bad faith. This might signal that the complaint was, indeed, made in bad faith. At the very least, he is going out of his way to be defensive on this point.

But even more importantly, this defensive denial is only a very weak denial. Complaining “in good-faith” absolutely does not mean that the complaint was well-founded. It just means that there was no blatantly fraudulent intent. An overly-sensitive (or crazy) person could complain about even innocent behavior “in good-faith.” So even if I assumed that this lawyer were telling the absolute truth here about “good faith,” it would not mean that Herman Cain did anything wrong.

. . . about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from the CEO.

So apparently, this woman complained about various activities — only some of which (allegedly) involved “unwanted advances.”

And the other activities did not apparently include rape, or coercion, or anything or anything else terribly serious, because the lawyer uses the rather mild word “inappropriate” to describe them. When I wear white socks to court, that is inappropriate. Rape is not “inappropriate.”

 Those complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement. She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now, nor in discussing the matter any further — publicly or privately. In fact, it would be extremely painful to do so.

Why would it be “extremely painful”? Possibly because she cheated on her husband in some way. Or perhaps because she just knows that she fabricated all these accusations, or that the silliness and triviality of the accusations will cause her embarassment if the details become public.

She is grateful that she was able to return to her government career, where she is extremely happy serving the American people to the very best of her ability. She looks forward to continuing to work hard for them as we face the significant challenges that lie ahead.

More defensiveness and stupid rhetoric. He is going out of his way to paint the woman as a saint — and laughably, merely because she gets a paycheck from the government. She very easily could work at a post office, yet she is supposedly saving America from the significant challenges that lie ahead.

She wishes to thank the media for the restraint they have shown her, . . .

This part is basically just a lie. The media has not shown restraint. This comment demonstrates that the lawyer does not have much respect for the truth.

. . . and thank her family for their love and support, her colleagues and supervisors for their patience and forbearance, and her advisers for their wise counsel, and most of all her dear husband of twenty-six years.

When he thanks “her advisors for their wise counsel,” he is indicating that her “advisors” had to persuade her not to speak. This somewhat contradicts the earlier statement — that she is keeping quiet merely because it would be “extremely painful.” Instead, she is apparently keeping quiet because all her “advisors” have advised her to keep quiet.

He also points out that she was married when these alleged incidents occurred.

Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace. Sexual harassment is unfortunately very much alive, and with us even today, and women must fight it in all kinds of workplaces and at all levels.

Generalities. He is saying that “women” in general must fight it — not that his client had to fight it.” Basically, he is trying to justify his dubious law practice. In his mind, sexual harassment occurs in all workplaces at all levels — and so therefore it was acceptable for him to attack Herman Cain. He is saying that some men engage in bad behavior, not that Herman Cain did. Notably, not once in this entire statement does this lawyer ever directly accuse Herman Cain of anything. Rather, the lawyer simply reports that his client made some accusations — and then the lawyer goes out of his way to distance himself from the client.

My client stands by the complaint she made.

First, this is an extremely DEFENSIVE comment. And basically, the lawyer’s entire statement is defensive.

The lawyer does not say, “Herman Cain is a predator,” or even any stronger defensive statement, like “Our complaint was justified.” Rather, he simply says that “[m]y client stands by the complaint that she made.” The complaint was not necessarily just, but she does stand by it. She made the complaint, not him. She stands by it. He does not. He is distancing himself from her.

Finally, in another interview, the lawyer also made the following very telling comment:

There’s an expression that where there’s smoke, there’s fire . . . . The fact that there are more complainants tells me that it’s more likely than not that there was some sexual harassment by this man at that time.

He did not believe his client, originally. But after learning that other women supposedly made similar allegations, this pattern “tells” him to have more confidence in his client. Thus, he now considers it “more likely than not” that his client was telling the truth. Notably, this is still a rather low level of confidence.

He also points out that another woman came to him, with a similar allegation, but decided not to pursue it. What are the chances that two women went to this same lawyer by chance? More likely, the news that one woman made the accusations had become public within the company. And this publicity brought other company malcontents out of the woodwork. Women are herd creatures.

Vague accusations

A story in the news right now is that some anonymous women once accused presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexually harassing them. Herman Cain admits the existence of the past allegations and denies the allegations themselves.

My question is:  Does anyone really care? This allegation seems to me like a defective indictment that fails to allege an actual offense. It’s like, even if we assume that any of this were true, so what? So what if he did sexually harass some women? I don’t see much point in having good-looking women at your business if you can’t harass them every now and then. (But then, do we even know whether these anonymous women were attractive, and thus worth harassing?)

People keep talking about this story even though I suspect that most people do not even know what sexual harassment is. Broadly speaking, Wikipedia defines sexual harassment as “intimidation, bullying, or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors” (emphasis added). I highlight the conjunction “or” to emphasize that sexual harassment does not even necessarily include sexual solicitation. Notably, another website specifically points out that “[s]exual harassment isn’t limited to making inappropriate advances.” Rather, “harassment” can include just saying things that are “suggestive,” or making “lewd jokes,” or making “sexual gestures,” or communicating “sexual comments about appearance.” I would go out on a limb and declare that even if a person were married and did any of the aforementioned forms of harassment, it would still not actually be wrong.

As far as legality, who knows. Everything is a crime nowadays. For example, I had a bonfire at my house recently. According to Tennessee, that is illegal unless I first ask for permission from the government. Come get me, Sheriff Long!

But whatever. I guess it’s always cool when you can throw vague accusations against people without backing anything up. My whole life story.

Regarding women and work

Maybe it is just my own fault for regularly reading a blog that is obsessed with the lifestyle of womanly housewifeyness, but the supposedly “traditional” idea that women should never work has really gotten on my nerves lately. In a recent post, the blog in question cites an old movie character approvingly:

IN THE the 1931 movie “Bad Girl,” a husband reacts to his wife’s suggestion that she get a job so they can have an apartment of their own. He explodes in anger (go to minute 09:09). “My idea of a husband is a guy that looks after a wife and takes care of her… If I can’t do that, I won’t be a husband.”

This movie character’s idea is contemptible. Seriously, what idiot first thought up the idea that women should never work? “Hey guys, I have a wonderful plan to spur economic growth — Let’s keep half the population at home to loaf around all day!” A man who considers his masculinity to be dependant on his spoiling of a woman is not a natural man. Rather, he has gone the way of matriarchy. He may think that he is simply loving his wife, but he is actually worshipping a goddess.

We see the results of this goddess-worship played out today on many of these recent Housewives of ________ shows on Bravo. Women without children stay at home and gossip and leach off the productivity of others. Anyway, the Thinking Housewife does suggest one emotional reason why women should not work:

Husbands of working wives felt less adequate as family breadwinners than did husbands of housewives, and this appeared to account for their lower levels of job and life satisfaction.

Yeah, but the manly solution is to earn more yourself. The solution is not to drag your wife down to make yourself feel better. And if you do expect that specific a girl can earn more than you (and if that matters to you, which it reasonable might), then DO NOT MARRY her. Simple.

Of course, I do understand how this extreme “traditional” idea derived that women should abstain from work. Natural women will tend to have children over time. While the women are pregnant, they will become at least partly and temporarily disabled from performing strenuous work. And then once the kids are born and still young, someone will need to raise them. Having to raise the children can obviously place some limitations on women’s ability to work. But these natural limitations on women’s ability to work are no reason to prohibit women from working altogether. The correct solution is simply to discourage careerism in women, not to discourage them from making sensible efforts to stay productive. Women should focus on their family in their hearts, and value it above the idea of a career. Then the right work moves will flow from that proper attitude. Obviously, this generalization does not apply to women who plan to stay single and not have children. But most women are not like that.

But this glorification of female idleness is wrong. It is basically a joke of a position.

Proverbs 31:10-31

Who can find a capable wife?
She is far more precious than jewels.

The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will not lack anything good.

She rewards him with good, not evil,
all the days of her life.

 She selects wool and flax
and works with willing hands.

She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from far away.

She rises while it is still night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her servants.

She evaluates a field and buys it;
she plants a vineyard with her earnings.

She draws on her strength
and reveals that her arms are strong.

She sees that her profits are good,
and her lamp never goes out at night.

She extends her hands to the spinning staff,
and her hands hold the spindle.

Her hands reach out to the poor,
and she extends her hands to the needy.

She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
for all in her household are doubly clothed.

She makes her own bed coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Her husband is known at the city gates,
where he sits among the elders of the land.

She makes and sells linen garments;
she delivers belts to the merchants.

Strength and honor are her clothing,
and she can laugh at the time to come.

She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and loving instruction is on her tongue.

She watches over the activities of her household
and is never idle.

Her sons rise up and call her blessed.
Her husband also praises her:

“Many women are capable,
but you surpass them all!”

Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting,
but a woman who fears the LORD will be praised.

Give her the reward of her labor,
and let her works praise her at the city gates.

Like I said, there are certainly some productive things that a woman can do at home. And raising children is indeed one of those productive things, which should be encouraged. And like I said, women should generally avoid careerism, because most women want to have children at some point. But I just do not like this idea that women should flatly avoid work. It is a stupid notion.

Time to switch Bibles

Wow.

Wow. I just noticed that Biblegateway.com has apparently switched over to the new, “improved” New International Version of the Bible. Apparently, the main improvements all involve turning masculine pronouns into gender-neutral, p.c. language. Because, you know, the Bible just wasn’t nearly clear enough before, and this is just way better.

Revelation 3:20 Comparison

NIV (1984)
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

NIV (2011)
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

The idiots. I think some people truly deserve to burn in hell for this kind of bad grammar.

And evidently, the company is planning to discontinue all the original NIV Bibles real soon, and then replace them with this new, IMPROVED version. I mean, really, way go — destroying both God’s Word and the English language in one fell swoop! You really have to hand it to them. Congratulations on this wonderful accomplishment, NIV-2011.

Women’s hair

While I have been discussing the topic of women in recent posts, another, related matter has recently come to my attention. I don’t see why women get short hair. Women, if you want to get all the finest, strongest, smartest, and most manly men to notice you, here is my advice:  Do not make your hair short.

A pop song and its music video are what made this matter urgent enough to warrant a blog post. Specifically, there is this pretty good pop song out right now called “Bulletproof.” Unfortunately, I made the mistake of watching the music video on Youtube, and now the song is permanently ruined for me. I just cannot get the hideous entity from this video out of my mind whenever I hear the music begin to play on the radio. It really is a shame. Warning:  Do NOT watch this video if you enjoy the song “Bulletproof,” or if you think you might ever want to.

Not overly long ago, my little sister suggested that she might cut her hair short, but I instantly warned her that if she did, she would look like a lesbian. Fortunately, she ultimately made the right decision, and as a result she still looks good.

Admittedly, there are a few instances where semi-short hair can still look decent. For example, consider the vampire Alice from Twilight:

Nonetheless, there are several reasons why this objection fails. First of all, her hair is not entirely short, but still retains some longness. Secondly, she is a vampire, and thus she is supposed to look a little weird. Thirdly, even if we found an exception here, it would not negate the rule that short hair for girls is generally bad.

Chloe from Smallville might seem like another counterexample at first, but as with Alice, her hair still retains some measure of longness.

Additionally, I get the idea from watching the show that Chloe is actually supposed to be somewhat unattractive, because Clark Kent is in love with a different girl. Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, when examining the matter further we actually find that both girls in fact look at least slightly better with longer hair:

These last pictures tend to prove that these women are not exceptions to the rule, but rather are simply outliers. It would be like if Rambo walked around wearing a pink dress and people still thought he looked masculine, that would not prove the point that some men look better in pink dresses. Hence, both these counterexamples essentially fail in their entirety.

Thus, we can ultimately see that this short hair craze among today’s women is certifiably insane. With these various examples, I think I have proven conclusively that women should never have short hair — except perhaps in extenuating circumstances, such as if they are vampires.

Hope for society’s morals

I think it’s interesting how many people have come out to criticize the new movie Eat, Pray, Love. The criticisms have generally been the same — the movie unjustly glorifies a woman who leaves her husband and who gets into wacko Eastern religion. For example, the New York Post (H/T Wintery Knight) attacked the movie as follows:

The biggest problem . . . is that the female protagonist is a selfish woman trying to find personal enlightenment and happiness apart from the God of the Bible. Sadly, she jumps from man to man. Even worse, she eventually finds spiritual darkness in the false religion of Hinduism and pantheism, the belief that everyone is god or has a piece of god inside herself.

The editorial also specifically mentions the divorce issue:

She also comes to believe she has to forgive herself, not apologize to the people she’s harmed, especially her former husband, who seems to be a decent, sincere man. (emphasis added)

Additionally, my friend Kevin just sent me a separate review (spoilers and vulgarity within link) that identified the same basic concerns:

Gilbert [the main character] is a shallow, self-indulgent, and arrogant woman. This person is not going on a journey of self-discovery . . . . This person is abandoning her life. Instead of confronting her problems, instead of working through them, or processing whatever it is that makes her so inexplicably unhappy, she abandons them. And she abandons a husband who — at least as he’s characterized in the movie — is loving, charming, and more than adequate because she needs some more . . . “me time.”

. . . .

And for what? So she can find herself? Or so she can find a better man? It’s hard to tell from the movie, because this woman is as shallow, self-indulgent and arrogant at the end of the movie as she is in the beginning . . . . [T]he best I can gather from the film is that all she learned along her journey of self-discovery is that she can eat more pasta, speak better Italian, and meditate, which is to say: Spend more time with herself, because God knows why anyone else would want to spend time with her.

. . . .

#*&$ you, and your Buddhist Ayn Rand bull$&@# philosophy.

I hear Christian writers (e.g., The Thinking Housewife) make these sorts of arguments all the time, but it seems unusual to see such bitter criticism from secular publications. I find that second review particularly hope-inspiring, because given the coarse language used all over that website, it is clear that the writing is not geared toward a churchy audience. Hence, we find some evidence in film reviews like these that even the regular, secular society is getting fed up with the matriarchal divorce culture and the New Agey religious garbage that have so corroded our republic.

Yet another false accusation by another worthless woman

Al Gore is a wicked and stupid human being, absolutely. But it is also absolutely true that he is innocent of this recent sex charge made by the anonymous woman. I have come to this conclusion after reviewing the audio tape of his accuser’s statement. (I’ve listened to the whole thing, although only Part 1 seems to be available on Youtube.) From what I can tell, the tape records her reading the statement after she wrote it or perhaps dictated it to police.

Based on the language she uses, it’s obvious that she is making up this story. In fact, the falsity of the accusation seems so plain to me that I think any idiot ought to see it. Frankly, the wording reads more like some sort of warped romance novel than like an accurate memory of a crime victim. Besides the overly flower language, a few of the verb tenses are also off, and the (lack of) pronouns seems odd. Additionally, her justification for why she was unable to flee the room at the earliest opportunity does not sound particularly credible. Furthermore, her inappropriate laughter during the reading serves to underscore the woman’s depravity.

This woman should be put in prison for her false accusation. That, and Al Gore should sue her for slander or malicious prosecution. Heck, I’d offer to represent you, Al! That is, I would…except that this non-existent “incident” happened in Oregon and I don’t think I could practice there, and I don’t think I could get personal jurisdiction over the woman in Tennessee courts. I think it’s a disgraceful that these despicable state governments (i.e., Oregon) often let these worthless yentas get away with making these accusations anonymously. When we have come to the point where a successful, relatively popular man can be attacked like this with impunity by some anonymous attention-whore with a dirty mind, we have failed as a society.

But then again, Leftists like Al Gore do tend to push for these “woman-empowering” rape shield laws and such, so I guess Al Gore is kinda getting what he deserves. As I demonstrated a few posts back, I become rather happy when I see wicked Leftists experience the foreseeable results of their self-defeating policies.

What’s that, Captain Nanny-State “Protector of Women”? You don’t think women invent rape accusations? Listen to this one on Youtube, and hear for yourself!