A Philosopher's Blog

Cain’s Defense

Posted in Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on November 9, 2011
NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 07:  Sharon Bialek spe...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

As it stands, Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment (and worse) by four women. His damage control attempts have been somewhat lacking in efficacy.

The first woman to go public was Sharon Bialek. She alleges that Cain groped her and pushed her head towards his groin, apparently using the offer of a job in an attempt to acquire sex. Cain has, as might be imagined, denied these allegations.

Cain’s main defense against this accusation has been to focus on Bialek’s financial problems. Bialek filled for bankruptcy in 1991 and 2001. From a logical standpoint, this approach does have some merit. After all, the credibility of a source depends (in part) on whether the source is an interested or disinterested party. Since Bialek could make money from such accusations, this would provide a financial motivation that could justify regarding her as an interested party and thus lower her credibility. Naturally, such accusations of interest do not directly refute her claims-to think otherwise would be to commit  an ad homimen fallacy.

Since this situation is a “he said, she said” sort of scenario, if Cain (and his people) can show that Bialek has less credibility than Cain, then it would be reasonable to accept Cain’s word over Bialek’s (all other things being equal). However, Cain faces some serious challenges here.

The first is that Bialek is only one of four women who have made accusations against Cain. The second is that settlements (or agreements) were reached involving Herman Cain and some of his accusers when he was heading up the National Restaurant Association. The third is that Bialek has said that she has no intention to seek financial benefits from this situation (for example, she did not sell her story) and this undercuts the attempt to show that she is making the accusation out of a desire for financial gain (and even if she were, the accusation could still be true).

It could be countered that while Bialek is not motivated by the hope of financial gain, she could still be an interested party on other grounds. While she has said that she is a Republican, the Republicans are currently divided into factions around the candidates. As such, it could be claimed that she is acting out of a political motivation and this lowers her credibility.

If it were shown that she had a political interest in the matter, then this would lower her credibility. Of course, it can be countered that Cain has a political motivation in deny the accusations. Also, even if she did have a political interest in the matter, her claim could still be true. After all, whether her claim is true or not depends on the facts, not on her interests or character.

While Herman Cain is being at least somewhat civil in his damage control, others are not. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has succeeded (once again) in disgusting me with his response to the situation.

When discussing the matter, Limbaugh pronounced Bialek’s name as”Buy-A-Lick” and made a licking/slurping sound. Given that Bialek alleges that Cain was trying to trade a job for oral sex, this seems rather pernicious. After all, Bialek is claiming that she was a victim of what seems to be legally sexual assault and this sort of commentary is certainly hateful and hurtful towards women who have been victims (which might include Bialek). While this is part of Rush’s persona, it is not any less reprehensible. After all, questions about credibility can be raised in a civilized and adult manner.

Oddly enough, Rush’s anger was also directed at Bialek’s thirteen year old son. According to Bialek, she asked her son whether she should tell or not and he said that she should do the right thing. Rush said “You think Obama doesn’t love hearing this? A 13-year-old tattle-tale. I mean, that is a brownshirt preview here. Exactly what big government types like.”

Rush seems to be really packing the fallacies in here. He starts by what appears to be the guilt by association fallacy by trying to link the boy to Obama.  After that, he uses a dsyphemism (possibly an ad hominem as well) by calling the boy a tattletale.  He then launches the argumentum ad hiterlum. This is an ad homimem variation is which a person is attacked by comparing that person to Hitler or a Nazi. He then finishes with a repeat of guilt by association by saying that this is what big government likes.

In addition to being what appears to be a string of fallacies, his claims seem rather bizarre. How, for example, is what the boy did (telling his mother to do the right thing) a “brownshirt preview”? Is he really saying that Obama and big government (whatever that means) are big fans of thirteen year old tattle-tales?  What could that even mean? Perhaps it is just a reflex of his to throw in Obama, Nazis and Big Government when attacking anything, whether it makes sense or not. In any case, these tactics do get him plenty of attention-thus showing, once again, that if he is crazy he is crazy like a fox.

Interestingly, if Rush thinks that the boy is a tattletale (rather than a liar) that would imply that he thinks that Bialek’s accusation has merit. After all, a tattletale is someone who tells on someone who has done something.

In any case, none of Rush’s bashing disproves Bialek’s claims. The truth (or falsity) of these claims is independent of the success or failure of Rush’s rhetoric.


Enhanced by Zemanta

48 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. magus71 said, on November 9, 2011 at 7:03 am

    Mike,

    I was with you until you started talking about Bialek’s little boy. When I heard her in an interview state that she decided to come forward with this because she asked her 13 year old son what he thought she should do, I shook my head. It was quite disturbing to me. Shouldn’t she, as the adult, be explaining to the little boy why she is coming forward, not the other way around?

    Secondly, in this interview, it is she that brings her teenage son into a dirty situation and into the public eye. It is not the same as when a politicians kids are eyeballed and criticized by the media, because at least in most cases, they seem to be collateral damage from attacks aimed at the politician. In this case the little boy was not collateral damage but a human shield used by Bialek to justify coming forward 2 decades late. I know this has nothing to do with whether she was assaulted or not, but it does make me question the woman’s thinking process.

    While I have sympathy for those who are victims of sexual assault and harassment, I must say that I hold those who make false accusations about such things in the same regards as the people who perpetrate the actual crimes. Actually, I think they’re worse, because they damage the person they falsely accuse, perhaps forever, and also make it difficult for people who really are victims to make their case.

    I’m taking a wait and see attitude on this one, but I’m suspicious of the woman’s motives. On the other hand, if it’s proven to me I won’t make the same arguments that all of Clinton’s defenders did (where are those Democrats now?) and I’ve called for the resignation of several republicans who were involved in scandals. Corruption in politics must be ruthlessly dealt with.

    A witness at the Tea Party convention in which Bialek met Cain last month says that she was back stage hugging Cain.

    Quoth Jacobson: “I had turned on TV to find out who was Cain’s accuser, and I almost fell over when I saw it was Sharon Bialek accusing Cain of groping her genitals.”

    “I was waiting for Herman Cain’s ‘Accuser No. 4’ to surface — and up pops Sharon!”

    “I couldn’t believe it. I was shocked.”

    “I recall Sharon was hell bent on going backstage at the TeaCon convention — where she cornered him,” said Jacobson.

    “I was surprised to hear she claims she did not know Cain was going to be there. Cain was expected and was late.”

    Bialek told the media on Monday: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

    http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html

    ◆The encounter: “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”

    ◆The introduction: “It all began when I took a convention break and joined my pals at the hotel bar. Sharon was drinking Mimosas with them. She said she was a Republican, a Tea Party member, had once dated [White Sox sports announcer’ Steve Stone] and had worked at WGN radio.”

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 9, 2011 at 10:38 pm

      I must admit that I was somewhat taken aback when she said she had talked this over with her son, but that could just be me thinking about what it was like to be 13 when I was 13. Also, a lot depends on how she discussed it with him (assuming she did so).

      However, I think it was wrong of Rush to compare the boy to the brownshirts.

      • magus71 said, on November 10, 2011 at 1:40 am

        She said she asked her 13 year old if she should come forward. She hadn’t made up her mind .

      • T. J. Babson said, on November 10, 2011 at 11:57 pm

        “However, I think it was wrong of Rush to compare the boy to the brownshirts.”

        Yes, definitely. He no doubt meant meant the Hitler-Jugend🙂

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 11, 2011 at 12:15 pm

          True, he should have gone with the Youth rather than the Brown. Speaking of brown, I wonder if there are any Nazi-UPS conspiracy theories?

  2. magus71 said, on November 9, 2011 at 7:09 am

    I know everyone on here but me hates Glenn Beck, but I think this is a good interview:

  3. T. J. Babson said, on November 9, 2011 at 7:59 am

    I suspect it is all over for Cain. It is starting to feel too much like Bill Clinton and his “bimbo eruptions.”

    • Anonymous said, on November 9, 2011 at 10:02 am

      Yup. He’s done.

      But check out the other accuser. She filed similar complaints against a following boss and made some outright crazy demands of the federal government in order to settle the case. She demanded to be promoted on the GS pay scale. And a free stint at the Kennedy School of Government, among other things.

      I smell a lot of badness here. What bothers me is the effect on the electoral process regardless of the evidence submitted at this point. At least with Clinton we had DNA evidence and recorded, sworn testimony that we know was false. What do we have here? All you need is suggestion, and a political threat is out of the race. Done.

      If Cain’s statements are true that this accuser was offended when he made a comment about her being the same height as his wife, I think she’s nuts.

  4. magus71 said, on November 9, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Howie Carr, a radio talk-show host out of Boston, whom I used to listen to religiously when I lived in Maine, pretty much says it all here:

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1379506&format=&page=1&listingType=col#articleFull

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 9, 2011 at 10:43 pm

      Howie Carr seems to have gotten it right. I think Cain is sunk-unless he can pull off a near miracle or something amazing happens. Maybe he can borrow some of the Clinton magic?

  5. magus71 said, on November 11, 2011 at 1:55 am

    Interesting. Bialek lived the same building in Chicago as Obama’s hatchet man, David Axelrod, who has a history of making confidential files appear to the media to thrash Obama’s opponents. This goes all the way back to Obama’s days as a Senator, where Axelrod cut down two of Obama’s opponents by producing court sealed files on men running against Obama. All of Cain’s accusers are from Chicago–a place Cain never lived. He only worked for the NRA for 3 years–yet all of the accusers that are coming forward are saying this happened during his tenure at the NRA.

    If only Obama’s people were this cunning when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies abroad…This Chicago politics at its finest. But yet again many people ignore the fact that their president is very well versed in the dirty ways of Chicago.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 11, 2011 at 12:23 pm

      Well, Obama has shown skill with handling enemies. Bin Laden is dead, so is Qaddafi.

      As far as the conspiracy goes, the settlements (or agreements) were reached back in the 1990s which would require either a time machine or a seer to bring about on Obama’s part.

      It does make sense for these matters to be brought up now-after all, Cain is running to be the one to run for President and part of the process is the ritual digging in the dirt. As far as Obama or the Democrats going after Cain now, that does not seem to make much sense. First, Obama would have a better chance against Cain than against Romney, at least with the general population (and it seems reasonable to believe that Romney is the de facto candidate). Second, if Obama is worried about Cain, it would have been better tactics to wait to see if Cain got the nomination and then drop the bomb on him just before the general election.

      It seems somewhat more likely that a Republican contender was involved (as Cain alleged), but even this is less likely than the explanation that the media folks largely live to find stories that will fuel news cycles. After all, you need to attract the eyeballs in order to sell that soap.

      • magus71 said, on November 11, 2011 at 3:14 pm

        Obama found bin Laden? What was he going to do? Announce that bin Laden was an friend and invite him to the White House to watch a soccer game? We didn’t kill Qaddafi; a bunch of street thugs committed a war crime and murdered him while they had him in custody. But I guess those international laws only apply to Americans.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 12, 2011 at 12:29 pm

          Obviously not personally. But if an administration has to take the blame for the entire economy, then it would seem it could get the credit for a military operation. Obviously the Seals got Bin Laden using intelligence gathered over time. We clearly had a hand in Qaddafi’s death-NATO aircraft busted his military and shot up his convoy, allowing the rebels to get him. While I am for the rule of law,I am not inclined to think that he did not get the fate that he had earned.

      • magus71 said, on December 16, 2011 at 10:32 am

        Obama’s still an appeaser. Any president would have killed bin Laden.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wages-of-appeasement/2011/12/15/gIQA5KEzwO_story.html

    • T. J. Babson said, on November 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm

      I voted for John Kerry, and may have voted for Hillary if she had been the nominee, but after I saw Obama give Hillary the finger in a debate he lost me, and when the Democratic party fell in love with Obama they lost me.

  6. magus71 said, on November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am

    According to Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s War, General David Petraeus hated David Axelrod, calling him an “absolute spin doctor.” Yet he’s Obama’s right hand man. Birds of a feather…,

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 11, 2011 at 12:24 pm

      Every politician needs a spider to spin their webs. Bush had Rove, Obama has Axelrod.

      • magus71 said, on November 11, 2011 at 3:09 pm

        Ohhh, I see. I thought Obama was above all that. Better than Bush.

        • Anonymous said, on November 11, 2011 at 6:00 pm

          I thought Obama was above all that. Better than Bush.
          You’ve just been listening to too many Republican spinmeisters.

  7. magus71 said, on November 12, 2011 at 4:54 am

    It does always amaze me that when I’m going through Mike’s older posts trying to find a statement he made, I find other statements that so blatantly expose the Democrat pundit in him:

    For instance:

    “Sarah Palin recently spoke about Iran, Obama and terrorism on Fox News. While we are currently involved in two wars, Palin seems to think that a third war (against Iran) would be something we should do. She said:

    “Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.”

    https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/palin-obama-and-iran/

    Yet, very little on the debacle in Libya. A third war, right? Oh–but that was was started by the right people. Now if only Qadaffi posed the same problems Saddam and Iran did and do.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 12, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      I was concerned about how Libya would play out-after all, as I said, adding an extra war is generally not something one should prefer to do. Libya seems to have been a model war for us: the war was won with little cost to us. It also seems likely that Qaddafi would have been thrown out anyway, only at a much higher cost without NATO support.

      Taking on Iran would be much more challenging than taking on Libya. I have no doubt that we could take them, but we should at least finish up in Iraq before jumping into Iran with a full scale invasion. If, however, a significant indigenous rebel movement arises and takes up arms against the regime, then I would be inclined to say that we should back them. I would certainly like to see Iran become a democratic state. However, I would certainly hate to see us set up another Shah complete with secret police.

      • wtp said, on November 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm

        A fanatical Islamic regime with it’s own secret police and Basiji thugs-on-call with nuclear weapons is far more tolerable.

        Set up another Shah? Did we do that in Iraq? And by what reasoning do you presume that the Shah was worse than the alternatives available at the time? I’m not endorsing the decision that was made, but it was made in an environment that you lack the objectivity to comment on.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2011 at 7:33 pm

          Yes, it is time for Iran’s tyrants to go. I would prefer this to be done with an internal revolution, rather than having to roll in and spend another decade rebuilding the place.

      • magus71 said, on November 13, 2011 at 1:49 am

        I just submitted an article to the Jerusalem Post. My argument is that all the ordinance we used on a regime that was no threat to the US should have been saved for Iran, and if NATO can’t muster the same unity on Iran it did on impotent Libya there’s a serious problem with the organization.

        I also argue that Gadaffi provided easy political points without any chance he could strike back, whereas Iran can still lash out if struck.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2011 at 7:30 pm

          Iran does need to be corrected as does Syria. However, it would be preferable to do this without war. I would prefer a world free of tyrants and monarchs-I’m all about exporting our revolution, comrade.🙂

      • magus71 said, on November 13, 2011 at 3:50 am

        We need to destroy their nuclear capabilities and we can do it on one day. All we need is the west to get its act together and act like it’s a unified force. If we do that, Iran presents little problem. Every war is different. Iranian citizens are even more secular than Iraqis and there would be no international Islamist army to invade after, like there was in Iraq. America destroyed most of them in Iraq, and the jihadists learned they can’t beat us if the people are behind America. The Iranians want their government gone, and the crazy mullahs will have nukes in a year. And they’ve said they’ll burn Israel off the map. what more do we want?

  8. magus71 said, on November 13, 2011 at 3:43 am

    “You think Obama doesn’t love hearing this? A 13-year-old tattle-tale. I mean, that is a brownshirt preview here. Exactly what big government types like.”

    Does it occur to anyone but myself that this is a statement against Obama and the Dems more than the kid; stating that Obama and the Dems like it because they now have another generation waiting in the wings? Like he says: Exactly what big government types like. It’s a statement on big government and Obama. he calls the kid a tattle-tale, not a brownshirt. He says big government endorses a brownshirt preview.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2011 at 7:28 pm

      He seems to be talking about the boy, but it could be taken as being against Obama. If so, it is still the same fallacy, just aimed at a different target.

      • magus71 said, on November 15, 2011 at 12:50 am

        Well, if sarcasm is a fallacy then you should hold Jon Stewart to the same measure. .

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2011 at 8:04 am

          One difference is that Stewart is a comedian and hence it is assumed he is engaged in humor. If Stewart were trying to prove something and he used an fallacious argument, then it would still be a fallacy.
          Using sarcasm for comedic effect would not be a fallacy. Using it as “evidence” would be a fallacy.

          • magus71 said, on November 15, 2011 at 9:22 am

            Few juries would find guilt based on a polygraph or VSA alone.

            VSA and polygraphs detect stress, not deception. That is why a series of baseline questions are asked before the interrogation begins so the the operator can see the zero point. Both VSA and polygraphs are not used to produce real evidence; they’re used to narrow the scope of investigations when there are many suspects or possible suspects.

            Professionals can easily defeat polygraphs. Aldridge Ames took two polygraphs and passed them while he was raping the American intelligence system.

            Perhaps Cain is a professional liar like Ames. I certainly wouldn’t think it would be difficult to lie about a two decade old civil infraction–you can’t go to jail for sexual harassment. As far as the physical sexual advances, technically if they happened they are assault, since Bialek found them offensive. But no court I’ve ever testified in would prosecute that. Bialek says she told him to stop and he did. Are we to believe that every first date ending with a man suddenly kissing a woman and her not liking it, is assault? Or imagine some dude at a party getting ambushed with a butt grab from a chick he finds unappealing and then calling the cops. Yeah, buddy, sure.

            Again–Cain’s not my guy but I’ll vote for him over Obama. I was thinking about this the other day: Even if he did what she says he did, I’m not that offended. It was 20 years ago. I’d be more offended if I knew he was lying, which I don’t. The burden is on her to prove what she alleges, and she hasn’t done it. Maybe tomorrow I’ll come out and say Cain sexually molested me when I was a kid, then wait and see how many copy-cats line up behind me for their shot at a book deal and a free dinner.

            You want real evidence? Look at Jerry Sandusky of Penn State. The evidence was overwhelming he was raping kids; one janitor saw him copulating with a boy in the university showers. And there’s lots more.

            Rush uses humor on every show. Actually, every hour of his show. That’s a major art of his gig–always has been. Actually it’s always struck me that I don’t think you realize Rush always uses humor, even if some find it offensive. Just like Rush, Stewart is considered not only a comedian, but a serious political commentator. He often interviews big time politicians and thinkers. The difference in your interpretations of Limbaugh and Stewart result from you agreeing with Stewart’s politics and not Limbaugh’s.

            Mush of what Limbaugh says is so obviously sarcasm and intended as humor, but his critics, who only listen to his snippets, the one line cut from a million sentences, they don’t know the difference.

            One example of Limbaugh humor: He posts this song on his webpage:

            Rush uses humor on every show. Actually, every hour of his show. That’s a major art of his gig–always has been. Actually it’s always struck me that I don’t think you realize Rush always uses humor, even if some find it offensive. Just like Rush, Stewart is considered not only a comedian, but a serious political commentator. He often interviews big time politicians and thinkers. The difference in your interpretations of Limbaugh and Stewart result from you agreeing with Stewart and not Limbaugh.

            Mush of what Limbaugh says is so obviously sarcasm and intended as humor, but his critics, who only listen to his snippets, the one line cut from a million sentences, they don’t know the difference.

            One example of Limbaugh humor: He posts this song on his webpage: (Don’t be a guilty white man, Mike) By the way it was the LA Times that called Obama The Magic Negro, not Limbaugh.

            • magus71 said, on November 16, 2011 at 10:48 am

              Not sure why my other post got pasted into this one, too.

  9. magus71 said, on November 13, 2011 at 5:34 am

    What’s the difference between Cain and Thomas’ cases? Not much. In both cases an age-old allegation which *barely* meets the criteria of sexual harassment (the thing a court would even look at in Cain’s case is when he supposedly said : “you want a job, right?”) and in both cases levied against conservative black men who pose a threat to liberal race hegemony. A coincidence, I’m sure.

  10. magus71 said, on November 13, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Law Enforcement agencies use this voice analysis program to determine the truthfulness of statements. According to this expert, Cain is telling the truth and Bialek is not. Oh, I know, it’s only science if it agrees with people’s already-existing beliefs.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/10/voice_analysis_cain_totally_truthful_while_accuser_is_inaccurate.html

    My instincts tell me she is lying.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm

      As much as I like technology, voice analysis does not seem to be accurate enough to provide an adequate basis for assessment. In any case, voice analysis is not like the Detect Lie spell in D&D-it does not actually detect lies directly. Presumably it looks for factors in the voice that are supposed to be correlated with lying, but there is still the question of accuracy. Now if it worked at a high level of accuracy, that would be awesome-the benefits to law enforcement and intelligence would be incredible. For example, imagine running questioning sessions through the software and getting such definitive results. It would also make my job easier-I could do without excuses and just have students talk into a mic on my computer about why they missed the test.

      • magus71 said, on November 15, 2011 at 12:52 am

        Mike,

        All I’m saying is it’s MORE evidence than Bialek has. Again, it can be used it court.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2011 at 7:58 am

          The scientific evidence from disinterested review seems to lacking. From what I have read, the accuracy is on par with guessing. I did see that courts can use it, much , like they can use polygraphs-that is, in certain circumstances.

          • magus71 said, on November 15, 2011 at 9:08 am

            Few juries would find guilt based on a polygraph or VSA alone.

            VSA and polygraphs detect stress, not deception. That is why a series of baseline questions are asked before the interrogation begins so the the operator can see the zero point. Both VSA and polygraphs are not used to produce real evidence; they’re used to narrow the scope of investigations when there are many suspects or possible suspects.

            Professionals can easily defeat polygraphs. Aldridge Ames took two polygraphs and passed them while he was raping the American intelligence system.

            Perhaps Cain is a professional liar like Ames. I certainly wouldn’t think it would be difficult to lie about a two decade old civil infraction–you can’t go to jail for sexual harassment. As far as the physical sexual advances, technically if they happened they are assault, since Bialek found them offensive. But no court I’ve ever testified in would prosecute that. Bialek says she told him to stop and he did. Are we to believe that every first date ending with a man suddenly kissing a woman and her not liking it, is assault? Or imagine some dude at a party getting ambushed with a butt grab from a chick he finds unappealing and then calling the cops. Yeah, buddy, sure.

            Again–Cain’s not my guy but I’ll vote for him over Obama. I was thinking about this the other day: Even if he did what she says he did, I’m not that offended. It was 20 years ago. I’d be more offended if I knew he was lying, which I don’t. The burden is on her to prove what she alleges, and she hasn’t done it. Maybe tomorrow I’ll come out and say Cain sexually molested me when I was a kid, then wait and see how many copy-cats line up behind me for their shot at a book deal and a free dinner.

            You want real evidence? Look at Jerry Sandusky of Penn State. The evidence was overwhelming he was raping kids; one janitor saw him copulating with a boy in the university showers. And there’s lots more.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2011 at 4:59 pm

              Yes, “lie” detectors can be beaten-mainly by a decent level of self control. Cain probably has the self confidence and speaking skills to “beat” one, but this does not mean that he is lying. The Sandusky case is rather a nightmare. While he is innocent until proven guilty, if he is guilty then this will be a rather horrific situation.

              Being in academics, I can see why such (alleged) cover ups take place. Institutions tend to evolve to self-protect and some of these “mechanisms” are immoral and, ironically, can end up doing way more damage. If the grad student had called the police when he saw the shower incident, things would be rather different now.

              I have heard some folks trying to compare Cain to Sandusky. While neither man has been shown to be guilty, the comparison is clearly a terrible analogy. Sandusky is accused of raping children while the worst accusation against Cain taken in the most serious light would be assault.

              I’d vote for Obama over Cain-Cain does not seem to have the knowledge and skills needed to be President. In any case, I’m 87.2% sure that Romney will be the candidate. Newt might get the VP slot, but I’m thinking probably not.

            • magus71 said, on November 16, 2011 at 12:55 am

              My mind is slowly being changed on Cain, as far as his suitability for president. Which is what these debates are for. He’s winging it on too many issues. Can’t vote for Obama though.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm

              Romney 2012?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: