Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    The case (or not) against Herman Cain

    The case (or not) against Herman Cain

    So many are calling Cain a liar or worse for not remembering a second settlement with a woman whom he allegedly “sexually harassed.”  How could he not know of a settlement?

    Details are dribbling out which support the conclusion that Cain was not involved and would not have known about that settlement, just like he has been saying, as reported by CBS News:

    The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999–and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

    Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

    Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

    That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it’s conceivable that Cain didn’t even know about it.

    And do not expect any facts from this accuser:

    Bennett plans to issue the statement in his name, not in his client’s name. It will not identify her, nor will it detail specific events of sexual harassment or the amount of settlement.

    What a complete journalistic and conservative blogospheric fiasco this has become.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Of course we don’t have available a full, free and unbiased knowledge base. Putting aside the philosophical question of whether such a thing exists, the problem I have with this statement is it seems to imply a passive role WRT to info.

    The point, I think, is: If you don’t have the data — go collect it. Don’t sit there being spoon-fed this and that. What I like most about the Tea Party is that it has gotten people out there collecting their own data on which to make their own choices.

    Your OODA point above is valid within a constrained operating enviroment, but that implies a game with rules and he who sets the rules, wins. The opposition thinks they make the rules; that they control the information space; that they place the goal posts.

    If we accept that, we play in their game and if they own the game, they own us.

    I say we just don’t play the game. That does not mean ignoring them, but it does mean we don’t just react to them. We go get our own data, we set our own goalposts, and we evaluate our choices accordingly.

    Granted this is not as easy, but that should not be much of a criterion [IMO].

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend