Herman Cain is a very likable breath of fresh air on the political scene. And, he has some good, if not fully formed, ideas. But, to my mind, he is not qualified to be President.
Unlike many others, I am not overly impressed with Cain's corporate resume. One does not have to be either the best or the brightest to advance to the top of the corporate ladder. The position of one's nose often plays a role as do other things, like the good work of subordinates and just plain luck.
I reach the conclusion that Cain is not qualified largely on the basis of the present controversy involving alleged acts of sexual harassment. Its not the alleged acts ( whatever they are); they many or may not really have taken place. Goodness knows, sexual harassment falls pretty far down on the objection-ability scale of things which Presidents have done while in office. At least one President thought nothing of receiving (dare I say) "head" in the oval office. If that wasn't a dis-qualifier, a little sexual harassment more than a decade ago shouldn't be either. (Indeed, except for those who studied at Oral Roberts University, BYU, Liberty and schools of that ilk, it would be hard to imagine that most who have gone to college were not guilty of sexual harassment or worse at some time. Or, have told an off-color joke in mixed company. Or, have complimented someone of the opposite sex on their outfit , hair, workout routine at the corporate gym, or the like.)
No, its not the foregoing which I think disqualifies Herman. Its that he clearly was not prepared for the eventuality that these activities would be found out in the course of the primary or general election campaigns. If Herman Cain (or his staff) didn't think this, at least, might happen, I don't want such myopic people running my country.
There are those who offer that, perhaps, these events took place so far in the past that Cain forgot about them. Nonsense. There are some things one never forgets. I have some personal experience which informs me in this area.
During my long career in the world of corporate law departments, I came to manage a woman who I thought did a good-enough job in the limited area to which she was assigned. But, for various reasons, I did not think her capable of advancing further in the law department and I had doubts, unproven, but well justified, about the employees honesty. I told her all of the foregoing during a performance review.
Shortly thereafter, she ran into the General Counsel in an elevator. He inquired as to why she looked so glum. She said, "Guy won't promote me." "Why do you think that is?" "Maybe because I'm black," she said.
As in routine in corporations worried about being sued, I was advised immediately that an investigation was to be conducted by the Human Resources Department. Needless to say, I was more than a little pissed. I was not concerned that I would be found to be a racist. I knew the facts. But, my honor -- the very core of who I thought I was and how I had tried to conduct myself as a human being -- was being attacked. I seethed about this investigation for two or three months until the cheerleader type from HR pranced into my office one day and told me she "good news." I was not a racist. I had been cleared. Wow! Good for me. (After a transfer to another department, the woman involved eventually was separated from the company. I heard through a very unofficial grapevine that some promotional items had been delivered by a company supplier to her house.)
As you can tell, I still remember that incident more than twenty years later. It still hurts. And, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Herman Cain remembered charges of sexual harassment, too. Its just something that cannot be forgotten easily.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Sometimes You Just Want To Scream
What kind of an idiot screams at his radio when he is driving along? Me! As I listen to news and talk, sometime I just have to let it out. Often, this happens as I listen to National Public Radio, some of whose anchors and interviewers must have concluded long ago that listeners are incapable of independent thought and, therefore, can be fed any sort of dribble without risk that the listener will consider what is being said critically. One such "sometime" occurred tonight as I was driving to met a friend.
The particular segment of the evening news roundup dealt with a young woman, a recent college graduate, who the reporter was following over time as she struggled to find a job. After months of unemployment, she finally found a job for which she was way overqualified. As I recall, it was something in the travel industry, and the woman was oozing with delight that she had a job.
The interviewer asked what kind of a job the woman had been looking for and she replied, "a coffee shop job." The position she acquired clearly was "a step or two up from that." Then, the interviewer asked where the woman had pictured herself being at this time in her life when she graduated from college. " On a PhD track," was the reply. "In what?" "Literature and Creative Writing."
I wanted to scream and scream I did. Gee, no wonder the woman had been frustrated in her job search. She was qualified to do nothing except, perhaps, teach and that hadn't been what she was seeking. While the interviewer sought to portray the plight of this woman with great sympathy -- a worker in the travel industry obviously is a position no one should be proud to have as employment. But, I wondered what the woman expected.
The interviewer never asked the woman how she expected to be employed given her training and never inquired what, if any, loans the woman had obtained while going to school or how she thought she might pay them back after she obtained the PhD in "literature" or "creative writing."
More generally, it seems to me (and to lots of other, I think) that students today given no thought when obtaining loans as to how those loans might get paid back after graduation. But, students are not the only ones to blame. Where are the parents of these students? And, perhaps even more culpable, are the lenders. Why are they not asking the student this very question before the loan is made and refusing to make the loan if the student doesn't have a good answer or repayment plan?
The notion that lenders ought to be responsible for certifying that, under some standard, a potential loan is being made to one for whom the loan is suitable and who has a reasonable ability to repay the loan, is not so strange. As I recall from my days in Law School, when I studied to become a Registered Securities Salesman, there was a requirement that, before an investment account was opened, the salesman had to document that the prospective investor had the degree of sophistication to understand what the investment involved and that the investment was suitable for someone with the financial resources (e.g., earnings and net worth) evidenced by the potential investor. Why not the same for student loans?
The particular segment of the evening news roundup dealt with a young woman, a recent college graduate, who the reporter was following over time as she struggled to find a job. After months of unemployment, she finally found a job for which she was way overqualified. As I recall, it was something in the travel industry, and the woman was oozing with delight that she had a job.
The interviewer asked what kind of a job the woman had been looking for and she replied, "a coffee shop job." The position she acquired clearly was "a step or two up from that." Then, the interviewer asked where the woman had pictured herself being at this time in her life when she graduated from college. " On a PhD track," was the reply. "In what?" "Literature and Creative Writing."
I wanted to scream and scream I did. Gee, no wonder the woman had been frustrated in her job search. She was qualified to do nothing except, perhaps, teach and that hadn't been what she was seeking. While the interviewer sought to portray the plight of this woman with great sympathy -- a worker in the travel industry obviously is a position no one should be proud to have as employment. But, I wondered what the woman expected.
The interviewer never asked the woman how she expected to be employed given her training and never inquired what, if any, loans the woman had obtained while going to school or how she thought she might pay them back after she obtained the PhD in "literature" or "creative writing."
More generally, it seems to me (and to lots of other, I think) that students today given no thought when obtaining loans as to how those loans might get paid back after graduation. But, students are not the only ones to blame. Where are the parents of these students? And, perhaps even more culpable, are the lenders. Why are they not asking the student this very question before the loan is made and refusing to make the loan if the student doesn't have a good answer or repayment plan?
The notion that lenders ought to be responsible for certifying that, under some standard, a potential loan is being made to one for whom the loan is suitable and who has a reasonable ability to repay the loan, is not so strange. As I recall from my days in Law School, when I studied to become a Registered Securities Salesman, there was a requirement that, before an investment account was opened, the salesman had to document that the prospective investor had the degree of sophistication to understand what the investment involved and that the investment was suitable for someone with the financial resources (e.g., earnings and net worth) evidenced by the potential investor. Why not the same for student loans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)