vis-a-vis the recent allegations against Herman Cain:
I realize that I am biased by juxtaposing two conservative Republicans with similar problems when seeking an opinion from you, but I'd like to know your opinion about these two individuals as if they were only individuals without any party/labels attached to them.
So, what do you think of Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain? Second, do you think they were set up for sexual harassment charges? Third, do you think they're Uncle Toms or they are simply tools without realizing they are tools?
I look forward to your insights.
The measure of a man is what he does with power- Plato
Anita Hill/ Clarence Thomas happened during my early adolescence so I didn't have an opinion of it then. But looking at the Youtube clip I was more shocked at how powerfully he asserted his rights to privacy from the media given how often he has voted against the privacy of citizens from government intrusion. But that is neither here nor there. I think most men don't study gender politics and the associated power dynamics in the modern workplace and so they get themselves in trouble. Clarence Thomas was stuck in a marriage with a decidedly unattractive white woman and when Anita Hill came in with her round ass and cute face he couldn't control himself. He was hell bent on setting up a sexual situation for himself in that office. So Clarence, doubled down on the sex talk because he was too stupid to do anything else. He had a certain level of power over this woman and he tried to leverage it into a sexual situation ,it isn't shocking when you consider at its core the whole purpose of power for men is to exercise sexual control over women.
Herman Cain is a joke and a liar. He had 10 days to come up with a strategy and he still hasn't been able to answer the questions in a coherent way. Now we'll never know what was said or done on those late Chicago nights. But what we do know is the women didn't like it. What was said might have been patently offensive to the point that continued employment was impossible or totally benign. This maybe a case of it being easier to pay a settlement and get a non-disclosure than litigation to clear his name. A civil version of pleading guilty if you will. But all of this denying is just insulting to the American electorate. If I was Bob Scheiffer I would ask him how many times have you been sued? How many times have you been sued for sexual harassment? It seems to me that most normal people would have those kind of numbers at the ready. Plus he acts like the settlement information isn't readily available. His settlement information isn't part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, he could call the attorney or the h.r. person who handled it and get the info within 15 minutes. But he knows , and we know he knows, and he knows we know he knows so the whole thing is insulting.
What these two Black men should have known was that Black male sexuality has always been a thing in America. It is the reason lynched Black men often had their genitals mutilated. Rampaging oversexed Negroes is the context which Hearst framed the first drug debates in his newspapers. The first modern film was about a Black man raping a white woman. So, these men were wrong for their overt sexual harassment and they were wrong for not realizing that a Black man needs to be as asexual as possible to avoid anything being misconstrued as sexual aggression.
I don't think there is any conspiracy here. Clarence Thomas had neither the judicial experience nor the academic background to be a supreme court justice. In a sense he was the ultimate Affirmative Action hire. He received his nomination because he was supposedly a good guy with great judgement. Anita Hill was interviewed by the F.B.I and then asked to testify before Congress. She never sought that stage. She did nothing to pro-actively derail him and I am sure she would have rather continued her law career far from the spotlight as she has done in the subsequent years. As for Herman Cain I think his repub buddies are sharpening their opposition research operations in an effort to winnow the field of a powerful undesirable.
My guess is Perry's camp considering most of the other contenders don't have the staff to do opposition research. So that is my long winded way of saying no I don't think the FreeMasons or the Illumanati or the Boule convened a meeting to orchestrate a plan to put these men in situations to make stupid decisions.
I don't have a problem with conservatism or Black conservatives. If they approached the African-American community and said I'm a conservative because I believe in open markets, limited regulation, a strong military, low taxes, family values, and support for Israel,I think we could have an intellectual discussion about the merits of that position. But they start in with the plantation analogies as soon as Afr-Am reject that position without taking into consideration the fact that government employment figures prominently in the lives of a lot of middle class Black people. Black conservatives also don't seem to acknowledge the fact that a lot of Black families may only be a generation or two outside of the very poverty they demonize and to tear the social safety net would put an additional burden on the very people they need to woo. The Black Conservatives are Toms because they provide cover for the racist factions within their party. Herman Cain with his I'm going to say all the racist things you good white folks can't say schtick comes to mind. Or Michael Steele who didn't believe in racism until they were running his ass out of leadership in the G.O.P on a rail. That's where the soft-shoe and tap dancing comes in that Black America by and large doesn't respect. Why can't a Black person be a republican without being a white apologist also?