Reality or conspiracy, plus my PAC
Nov. 9th, 2011 06:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muck_a_luckAre the charges real?
I believe the charges against Herman Cain are true enough.
I work for a guy who does workplace discrimination cases. Not primarily or anything, but I know how he approaches cases.
1) He usually won't even talk to a person until they have gotten a referral from the county human rights commission stating that there is evidence of harrassment.
2) In my experience, lawyers very rarely offer contingency fees unless they are positive they can win. He said/She said, with no supporting evidence or witnesses or plausibility is not a case a lawyer would offer contingency on. For that matter, even with OK evidence, he would probably still charge hourly, which means the client would have to pay hourly and up front, so the client would probably not be motivated to pay a couple thousand out of pocket for a case with no evidence (assuming the lawyer would even take a case without at least basic plausibility).
3) He doesn't hesitate to tell people they have no case if he thinks they have no case.
On the basis of this experience I believe that if money was paid by Cain's company, then there was a case for harrassment. If they thought the woman had no case, they would have told her to buzz off and not paid her. She would have gone out, found no lawyer, and been out of luck. And HR people must know this. Now, they apparently didn't pay A LOT of money, so the event was probably only moderately bad. But I'd bet it was more than a nuisance.
More to the point,
Should something 'like this' end his presidential hopes?
Yes.
1) Why do we want to elect a guy who harrasses women in the workplace? Why do we want yet another outsided, macho ego that thinks the world revolves around his sexual needs? Why do we want to elect yet another politician that brings his dick into the public limelight so we all have to think about it, in all it's limp, icky, sticky, hairy, blech ness.
2) Herman Cain's response to this scandal shows that he doesn't know how to deal with a crisis. Not presidential material.
3) Even if you think his response *actually* shows that he is "not a politician" and therefore that is a GOOD thing, his response generally shows disrespect for the voters. His response - quit being so stupid and quit talking about this because it is patently a stupid story - it is NOT stupid to me, a female voter, to know if he is a man who uses power to abuse women.
Which brings me to my final point.
I believe it is time for me to establish a PAC, compeltely devoted to getting rid of politicians that cause the public to have to think about their penises and the actions of those penises. I would like to be able to throw tons and tons of money at this problem.
This week I was forced to think about Herman Cain's penis. *shudders* It should be illegal. His behavior caused me to envision him in a car trying to get a woman to SUCK HIS DICK. *shudders even more* He should crawl into a hole and not come out.
Until there is a male politician hot enough to incorporate a sexy strip tease and pole dance into his campaign stump speeches (for instance, Michael Shanks (though I recognized that he is Canadian, so not eligible for the office, but someone of a Michael-Shanks-level of hotness)), I do not want to think about any politician's penis. Just no. And there should be a law. Or at least career-ending repercussions.
Please contribute to the Ken Doll PAC.
Thank you.
I believe the charges against Herman Cain are true enough.
I work for a guy who does workplace discrimination cases. Not primarily or anything, but I know how he approaches cases.
1) He usually won't even talk to a person until they have gotten a referral from the county human rights commission stating that there is evidence of harrassment.
2) In my experience, lawyers very rarely offer contingency fees unless they are positive they can win. He said/She said, with no supporting evidence or witnesses or plausibility is not a case a lawyer would offer contingency on. For that matter, even with OK evidence, he would probably still charge hourly, which means the client would have to pay hourly and up front, so the client would probably not be motivated to pay a couple thousand out of pocket for a case with no evidence (assuming the lawyer would even take a case without at least basic plausibility).
3) He doesn't hesitate to tell people they have no case if he thinks they have no case.
On the basis of this experience I believe that if money was paid by Cain's company, then there was a case for harrassment. If they thought the woman had no case, they would have told her to buzz off and not paid her. She would have gone out, found no lawyer, and been out of luck. And HR people must know this. Now, they apparently didn't pay A LOT of money, so the event was probably only moderately bad. But I'd bet it was more than a nuisance.
More to the point,
Should something 'like this' end his presidential hopes?
Yes.
1) Why do we want to elect a guy who harrasses women in the workplace? Why do we want yet another outsided, macho ego that thinks the world revolves around his sexual needs? Why do we want to elect yet another politician that brings his dick into the public limelight so we all have to think about it, in all it's limp, icky, sticky, hairy, blech ness.
2) Herman Cain's response to this scandal shows that he doesn't know how to deal with a crisis. Not presidential material.
3) Even if you think his response *actually* shows that he is "not a politician" and therefore that is a GOOD thing, his response generally shows disrespect for the voters. His response - quit being so stupid and quit talking about this because it is patently a stupid story - it is NOT stupid to me, a female voter, to know if he is a man who uses power to abuse women.
Which brings me to my final point.
I believe it is time for me to establish a PAC, compeltely devoted to getting rid of politicians that cause the public to have to think about their penises and the actions of those penises. I would like to be able to throw tons and tons of money at this problem.
This week I was forced to think about Herman Cain's penis. *shudders* It should be illegal. His behavior caused me to envision him in a car trying to get a woman to SUCK HIS DICK. *shudders even more* He should crawl into a hole and not come out.
Until there is a male politician hot enough to incorporate a sexy strip tease and pole dance into his campaign stump speeches (for instance, Michael Shanks (though I recognized that he is Canadian, so not eligible for the office, but someone of a Michael-Shanks-level of hotness)), I do not want to think about any politician's penis. Just no. And there should be a law. Or at least career-ending repercussions.
Please contribute to the Ken Doll PAC.
Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-10 12:32 am (UTC)In general I feel it's rare for women to make up these kinds of complaints because of the shitstorm that follows. The wife of one of my professors was best friends with Anita Hill, and it was horrifying for them to know how much integrity she had personally, and see all crap people who knew nothing about her were saying about her. What you say about attorney involvement makes a lot of sense as well.
May we never have to hear about another politician's dick!