Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. A global network map, colored by language.
  2. OWS domiciles.
  3. A reminder of Mr Obama’s (putative) strategy of moving to a non-nuclear world … somehow.
  4. Elite.
  5. Skillz or pull?
  6. Swim swim swim against the current.
  7. Marking time.
  8. Green energy failing “because it’s too cheap” … heh.
  9. Our global economy.
  10. Context for descriptive language
  11. And this likely has been seen done by men to men.
  12. Cain’s non-banishment in the polls reason one, we don’t trust the media and reason two Ms Hill and Mr Thomas in which this story is reprising that mountain-from-molehill kerfuffle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    3.A reminder of Mr Obama’s (putative) strategy of moving to a non-nuclear world … somehow.

    I’m not really seeing how this is related to anything Obama has done and everything to what Pakistan has done. Pakistan has bent over backwards to indicate its an erractic and untrustworthy ally. Yet the US has never threatened to invade Pakistan, only target known terrorist cells operating under what seems to be its protection. If for some reason the country has decided to start moving its nuclear weapon(s) around in vans or trucks….well I think that’s less a consquence of Obama advocating a world with fewer nuclear weapons and more a consquence of the Bush administration ignoring the warning signs a long time ago that Pakistan was not quite the ally they were making it out to be, and its holding nuclear weapons was a bad idea to begin with…..not some type of NRA dogma about it simply being for self defense against India. There may, at this point, be nothing anyone can do about Pakistan.

  2. Boonton says:

    12.Cain’s non-banishment in the polls reason one, we don’t trust the media and reason two Ms Hill and Mr Thomas in which this story is reprising that mountain-from-molehill kerfuffle.

    Mountain from molehill? I can guarantee you if I walked around work talking about how big my genitles were and making jokes about public hair being left on soda cans I’d be fired pretty quickly. Perhaps this was the SOP in the late 1950’s but times have long since moved on and Hill’s charges were never refuted.

    The charges against Cain are much, much worse and IMO more likely true given the fact that they seem to be coming from multiple women with no connection to each other and settlements were made by their employer.

    I notice that the site you link to suffers from the same mental problem that often afflicts people who comment on stories like this, they substitute pop sociology for facts. “cultural subconscious” about race is all well and good, that doesn’t answer the question of did he take a woman he never meet before and jam his hands between her legs and try to force her head to his crotch then making jokes about “you want a job right?”? Either that happened or it didn’t happen. And if it did happen….if some hidden video tape, say, surfaced, I don’t think it would be a ‘molehill’ and I don’t think GOP voters would care much for pop theories of ‘cultural subconsciousness’

    His lack of falling in the polls, I suspect, demonstrates just how much the GOP is disgusted by their most likely nominee, Romney. What will be amusing will be to observe how the GOP will, when they nominate him, swallow their disgust and spin him as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

  3. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    I can guarantee you if I walked around work talking about how big my genitles were and making jokes about public hair being left on soda cans I’d be fired pretty quickly.

    Yes, but if some lady at the office uncorroborated by anyone else claims you said that and you denied it … would you also be fired as quickly?

    And yes, the charges against Cain are much worse, so much worse that one might wonder why sexual assault charges, not harassment, were not filed with the police 15 years ago.

    My view at this point is a wait-and-see approach to see where things fall, but the faux outrage coming from a bunch of guys who still support Mr Clinton for whom such charges (made more credible by the Lewinsky affair) also came from “multiple unconnected women” is not exactly credible.

    Mr Obama has a claim to a strategy for a non-nuclear world. What is it? How does it deal with countries like Iran and Pakistan?

  4. Boonton says:

    Possibly, or possibly not. The inability to fire me, though, doesn’t establish that everything’s ok, only that I didn’t get caught.

    And yes, the charges against Cain are much worse, so much worse that one might wonder why sexual assault charges, not harassment, were not filed with the police 15 years ago.

    Might be borderline in terms of sexual assault….if he was fully clothed when he pulled her head to his crotch and if he only put his hand up her legs instead of all the way up. What’s questionable about Cain is that multiple women charged him, multiple investigations were done by the company and multiple times the women were paid off.

    My view at this point is a wait-and-see approach to see where things fall, but the faux outrage coming from a bunch of guys who still support Mr Clinton for whom such charges (made more credible by the Lewinsky affair) also came from “multiple unconnected women” is not exactly credible.

    I don’t believe either Clinton or Lewinsky ever went into detail about how their affair began, but I’m unaware of any evidence it began with Clinton grabbing her crotch and trying to pull her to his on their first meeting. Let’s not confuse the charge of sexual harassment with simply having sex with a willing partner or trying to propose sex.

    Mr Obama has a claim to a strategy for a non-nuclear world. What is it? How does it deal with countries like Iran and Pakistan?

    He does? I don’t recall that. Please cite his claim that he has a strategy to rid the world of all nuclear weapons.

    While you’re at it, why don’t you address why this Pakistan criticism wouldn’t also apply to neocon claims that we should ‘take out’ Iran’s nuclear weapon capacity. Wouldn’t a reasonable response by Iran too be to keep their nuclear weapons more mobile rather than in highly secure bunker complexes that could be targetted by US air capabilities?

  5. Boonton says:

    Just to be clear, I’m open to the possibility that it is a set up. Perhaps he liked to joke in a rowdy manner, perhaps one woman made a stink about it and got a payoff and a few others followed through to do the same and today Cain would rather not defend himself for telling dirty jokes. But the fact that the women are coming forward, subjecting themselves to possible libel suits from Cain if they were totally fabricating, and providing stories that are not simply ‘molehills’…..jokes or some other innocent thing that could have simply been misread….does kind of put the ball in Cain’s court to explain himself.

  6. Boonton says:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67913.html Cain’s floundering continues.

    At this point I’d put the odds at 80% that the women are telling the truth which means that Cain is an absolute liar. More importantly, I think the character flaw here is partly that the guy might be a leech, but more that the guy cannot handle the responsibility of power. As a CEO or high executive, his job is to work for the shareholders of his company. If unintentional ‘joking’ cost the shareholders hundreds of thousands of dollars once, he should have been mortified. Instead he seems like he did it multiple times letting his shareholders foot the bill left and right….presumably because his service was so valuable and essential that they should have felt grateful for his ‘leadership’ it shouldn’t have mattered if he was wasting serious amounts of money while gaining fame among the right for telling Bill Clinton he couldn’t afford to give his workers health care plans.

  7. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    which means that Cain is an absolute liar.

    And for y’all that should be a good thing, I’d think. You after all aren’t abashed at your Obama support and he too is an absolute liar just as well.

  8. Boonton says:

    You keep saying that, yet unfortunately you never really get around to being very convincing when you try to show it.

  9. Boonton says:

    But let’s be real here. We can, say, disagree whether or not it is true to say that the health plan ‘lets you keep your own doctor’. A big part of a question like that is contingent upon what exactly you mean by that question. Claiming you didn’t grab a woman’s crotch at a business meeting when you did is much more cut and dry.

  10. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Claiming you didn’t grab a woman’s crotch at a business meeting when you did is much more cut and dry.

    You have evidence he did?

    More seriously, to decide Mr Cain is a reliable witness or not depends in part on a review of past performance and whether or not he is trustworthy. If he is a habitual liar, then his claim he did not is not credible. If he is not, then his claim he did not needs to be taken more seriously. What then, do you know about the reliability of the accusers for example?

  11. Boonton says:

    Well let’s consider Mr. Cain’s initial reaction was not only denial that any such thing ever happened but that his employer investigated the charge and found it to be without merit. When he was told there were settlements I believe he said “I hope not because I didn’t do anything wrong”. Now we see multiple charges, multiple investigations and multiple settlements. Is it plausible to believe at no point did his employer take him aside and note that something seemed to be amiss, that rather large settlements were being paid out multiple times? So far nothing about the women coming forward seems to indicate they were in cahoots with each other or some scheme to defraud the company with false complaints. No connection has been made between them and any opposition campaign (which I suppose might be possible but then who in 1996 would have been working on creating an anti-Cain campaign to use against a campaign Cain wouldn’t launch until nearly 15 years later?).

    What do I know of the reliability of his accusors? Not much, so far nothing that’s negative, but I’m open to hear any new evidence that turns up. What do we know of Cain’s credibility? Well its not very great at the moment IMO and IMO likely to get worse as time goes on.

  12. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Mr. Cain’s initial reaction was not only denial that any such thing ever happened but that his employer investigated the charge and found it to be without merit. When he was told there were settlements I believe he said “I hope not because I didn’t do anything wrong”. Now we see multiple charges, multiple investigations and multiple settlements. Is it plausible to believe at no point did his employer take him aside and note that something seemed to be amiss, that rather large settlements were being paid out multiple times?

    Hmm. Let’s see. Apparently in the large corporations the standard practice when allegations of sexual harassment arise, the accused is not informed to protect the accuser. And that for the protection of the accused, the accuser is not informed of the investigation. Accordingly it is in fact likely that Mr Cain was only informed after settlement in passing. Given that it was 15+ years ago, his non-memory/denial is not implausible.

    “Large settlements” … by what standard? Compared to what?

    So far nothing about the women coming forward seems to indicate they were in cahoots with each other or some scheme to defraud the company with false complaints.

    Apparently this is old data. There is a suggestion recently of a Chicago connection, where all the women originate and where Mr Cain never worked.

  13. Boonton says:

    Hmm. Let’s see. Apparently in the large corporations the standard practice when allegations of sexual harassment arise, the accused is not informed to protect the accuser.

    No its not. In some types of cases the accusor may be kept secret….if say you had a offensive picture in your cube the HR department may not tell you who objected to the picture but no if the accusation is you harassed a specific person the investigation will, by necessity, have to reveal who accused you. Usually large corporations will have strict retaliation policies that would ban you from doing anything against the person who accused you.

    And that for the protection of the accused, the accuser is not informed of the investigation. Accordingly it is in fact likely that Mr Cain was only informed after settlement in passing. Given that it was 15+ years ago, his non-memory/denial is not implausible.

    Being falsly accused of pretty serious things should be quite a memorable experience, being false accused multiple times should be even more so. Your attempt to move the plausibility needle back to the ‘plausible’ side needs more work than this…

    “Large settlements” … by what standard? Compared to what?

    From what I understand they are in the neighborhood of a year’s pay or more. I’m not sure why such a thing would be ‘settled’ for a trivial sum like $29.99. Let’s just say they were $80K or so.

    I haven’t been able to find hard numbers, but I suspect the National Restaurant Association is a rather small outfit. I would be surprised, for example, if they have more than 100 employees making $80K payouts hardly a drop in the bucket. More importantly, though, the issue is payouts made on behalf of a company’s CEO. The idea that Cain was not aware of payouts being made on his behalf says either he is being dishonest or he took his responsibilities to his shareholders with an exceptional amount of laxity. The idea that a man who was *falsely* accused multiple times would be so indifferent or unaware or forgetful strains plausibility to the breaking point.