When will it end? The message finally got through to the Media Mental Midgets that Herman Cain's "accusers" were nothing more than finger pointers, and, if this were not enough, most people began to see that Gloria Allred apparently did not get enough out of her previous 15 minutes of fame and wanted to go for more TV face time. The only difference now is that she wasn't wearing her favorite-colored jacket: All Red.
Let's take a step backward and analyze this "sexual harassment" thing for a moment. If everyone knew the parameters of Sexual Harassment, they may come to realize that what "those women" said was sexual harassment was not that at all. They were only claims of "something" but to be truly sexual harassment, it requires a distinct process and subsequent progression to be a legal offense, at least in the eyes of the government.
I spent some 31 years either wearing the uniform of the Armed Forces of this country or working for the Department of Defense. While working for Uncle Sam in Sacramento, CA, we were "blessed" by visiting teams to enlighten us as to what Sexual Harassment really is. They came one year and spent several days making sure every person in the organization had been given the complete treatment and made sure that no one was left out. The following year, they did it again. Why? Because the government was being hit with countless claims of sexual harassment and, as they told us, the average claim cost the government in legal activities and time lost, whether the case proved to be actually one of sexual harassment or proved to be a mere claim for some reason, one that was often obscure. The cost to the government, on the average, was on the order of $150K-$200K. This was in the mid-to-late-'90s and now it can be safely assumed that the cost is much greater. Even for the federal government at that time, it was significant enough to send out the training teams because Sexual Harassment mischief (bogus claims!) was getting out of hand.
The teams were not strictly what one could call the result of some kind of Politically Correct motivation. Claims of sexual harassment were going viral, as they might say today, but then they merely said it was "increasing at an alarming rate." To make it less expensive and more manageable, people in Washington figured that it was best to let people know what constituted Sexual Harassment, how it was legally determined and the required procedure when it merited going through the process.
Here is a summary of the 2-3 days of "training" we received for determining that there was indeed sexual harassment and the process that had to be followed:
When a person (it applies to man OR woman!) senses something offensive of a sexual nature, then that perception was key to the offense. In other words, the offended person had to sense/perceive that there was something said or done that was unwelcome and that it indeed offended. Note that at his point, it was still not yet sexual harassment. So, here is the process that was to be followed:
The offending person had to be informed, then, that what was said or done was not welcome and it was personally offensive. Ideally, this was not whispered behind the "offended" person's hand, it was best done with friendly witness/es to the person who sensed/perceived the offensive action. It was recommended that it be done in a "helpful" way designed not to be offensive in return.
Once the person is offended and has informed the offender that the action was not welcome, the stage is set for a case of sexual harassment. Still, however, at this point harassment has not occurred.
Sexual Harassment occurs
after someone has been offended by a perceived, unwelcome action and has informed the "offender" that it was not welcome. At this point, the stage is set for a case of sexual harassment. However, it is not complete until/unless the action or activity is repeated.
For examples of what constituted Sexual Harassment, we were taught that it might be overhearing a conversation of a sexual nature where the offenders were aware of others within hearing range. It could be a calendar of "nekid wimin" on the wall or a Playboy centerfold found open on a supervisor's desk where others could see them. It could be an obscene gesture. It could be anything perceived offensive and possibly hurtful to someone's sensitivities. However, while these things may well be offensive, they were NOT sexual harassment until the offender is informed that it is unwelcome and when it is repeated. THEN the claim of sexual harassment may be recorded and the process started to investigate, document findings, and come to viable and proper conclusions that comply with standing regulations.
Herman Cain did not commit sexual harassment even if what they say is true. It is sexual harassment only if he had been informed that it was unwelcome and he had then repeated it.
Claims of sexual harassment do not include what someone intended or thought to do unless, possibly, it is disclosed by the person said to be the offender. In other words, we cannot charge and punish someone because he has murder in his heart or on his mind; we can only charge someone with murder when murder has actually been committed. Granted, it is sometimes helpful when we see revealed the personality of someone, but in the case of sexual harassment, it cannot be a viable claim per se unless the "offender" is warned and the activity is repeated.
Many people thought that Richard Nixon was some kind of devil.
Many people thought that Richard Nixon was some kind of devil. Most of those who thought that were politically motivated. We learned later that Nixon and his staff, or some of them, used some pretty bad language when talking to each other in private. The editor of a Central Texas newspaper, one of my friends when I worked at Fort Hood, told me that he spent three days listening to Nixon's White House tapes in Dallas and he heard a lot of vulgar/profane language but that was about all. The media, even then, were in attack mode and hinted that no one should hear what was on those tapes but they were damaging to the Nixon's reputation and that was about all. In other words, implying that there was damaging information on those White House tapes was used to sully Nixon's reputation and keep people from wanting to hear them but it was not enough to take him to court. My friend said the only thing he heard was Nixon telling someone on his staff, "This Watergate thing is a big distraction. Do what is necessary to put this behind us. I have a country to run and a war to win and we don't need this." This is why he gave his "I am not a crook" statement, he was not party to the "crimes" the Media and Democrats attached to him. However, the damage was done by the media (and Nixon's political enemies) and he was not able to survive it.
We see a similar thing happening now with Herman Cain. Hints and implications from commentators, even on Fox News, are showing that they are solidly in Barack Obama's corner by snide remarks or open-ended comments complete with raised eyebrows that rival the cartoon-like look we see on Axelrod's face when he tries to act innocent.
I would love to see Herman Cain or someone in his situation take those "claimants" to court and sue their pants off. If this were done, then it would leave a distinct message with the MSM types and with some of his political enemies. There is a lot of latitude given to political people when they make public claims against their opponents but when it deals with a man's family, his reputation, etc., it sullies the reputation and, to my mind, akin to libel and slander. If Herman Cain made an example of those who suddenly feel that they were somehow offended and those who oppose them, forcing an independent investigation, then there would be a lot more soul-searching by those closet-mongers who suddenly come out with wild stories without substantiation and, therefore, no distinct proof as would otherwise be required in a court of law.
Remember how Sarah Palin was also ravaged by wild claims, some made by media people who only wanted to hurt her?
Remember how Sarah Palin was also ravaged by wild claims, some made by media people who only wanted to hurt her? For the same motivation; that she posed a threat to Obama & Co. The damage to her was not apparent because it was in the background. However, those on the Political Left thought she had to be stopped by any means. This mindset is still out there!
If we could see some person in this situation who actually won an election after all possible damage to the person's reputation had been done, maybe the Media Types could see their best efforts being counterproductive. Personally, I'd love to see the Media squirm while attempting to explain what had just happened in the election.
I believe that if Herman Cain won some of the elections after the sexual harassment claims and subsequent polls showed how it made his supporters even more determined to be on his side, it would send the media into a spin-dive. That’s when I'd once more be glued to the screen, just to see the egg on the faces of the Media Hypes considering how they always seem to know better than John Q. Public.
Once more, Herman Cain did not sexually harass anyone according to the government process of what constitutes this much-too-often wild claim. He is, however, being harassed by his political opponents and by the media in general. It sure seems to me that he is one of the most-feared Obama Opponents and the media is sure doing their part in making Obama's return path to the White House as smooth as they can make it.
I'm again reminded of the old Star Wars statement by Obewan Kenobe: "Who is the greater fool, the fool leads or the one who follows?" Are Americans so eager to follow the "entertaining" media and not use their minds? If so, then, who are the greater fools?
