Herman Cain, Politico, and the Sexual Harassment Claims Story Continuum

Right now, I assume you've heard about the Politico story about two women who settled sexual harassment claims involving Herman Cain, and got some kind of payment in exchange for not pursuing the matter further and for keeping their mouths shut about the whole thing in the future.

It's causing a lot of controversy. 

Here's the thing:  first of all, I'm betting we are all going to know the gory details sooner or later, confidentiality agreement or not.

Second, after the facts are known, I am not at all sure that this will mark the end of  Herman Cain.  Some think it will (or that it should).  

Maybe it will if the facts are analogous to the case of Judge Samuel Kent.  I don't know that it will if the facts are analogous to those of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Thomas survived those televised hearings with Anita Hill’s testimony about the Diet Coke, among other things. Sure, some sordid details.

Didn't matter.

However, it was a different story for federal district judge Samuel Kent once all the facts came to light in his case.   There was testimony of years of aggressive sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Kent provided by two of his female employees to the House Judiciary Committee as part of his impeachment hearings (there was a criminal proceeding in Texas, too). 

Former Judge Kent sits in home confinement right now, after serving all but three months of his 33 month sentence in a federal jail cell -- far far away from where Justice Thomas sits today up in Washington.

Bottom line:  IMHO, if the Cain story is closer to Kent than to Thomas, and that story is revealed to the public, then I agree, he’s a goner.    However, right now, with just the Politico story … I don’t think Herman Cain’s campaign is doomed.  At all. 

Obama's Not Gonna Fire McChrystal

Sure, you gotta wonder about the General letting a Rolling Stone reporter roam around freely for a month. 

Is he arrogant, stupid, crazy like a fox (I'm voting fox)?  And, it's all about that Rolling Stone article.  Not the war, not the General's job performance.  It's all about what has been reported in that magazine interview that hasn't even hit the stands yet. 

You can read the full text of Rolling Stone interview of General McChrystal in its entirety now.  Rolling Stone has wisely already released it as an online publication.  

But here's my prediction:  McChrystal's not gonna be fired. 

Let's see if I'm right.

Right vs Wrong -1: TMZ Identifying Underage Sex Crime Victim is WRONG

Things are muddy and getting muddier in our society, and there are times when lines should be drawn in the sand and kept there. Here's one of them.

Earlier this week, TMZ not only reported on the alleged sexual relationship between a female adult, age 22, and a 14 year old boy - they posted his name and published his photograph.

What was the big draw for TMZ? The boy's father is a famous Academy-Award winning movie star, with an even-more-famous ex-wife (with her own Oscar, by the way).

What does TMZ's Harvey Levin say about this? According to AP, Levin's response is: "[t]he story speaks for itself."

Well, Mr. Levin - that's not passing muster - in fact, your response seems a tad smug to me. Shame on you.

Minor children need to be protected, and I for one, predict that TMZ (along with its owner, TimeWarner) gets sued by the parents of this boy, on his behalf. In fact, I would applaud the filing of such a lawsuit.

Why? It seems apparent that having to pay big bucks seems extremely appropriate here as a way of communicating that it's just plain wrong to reveal the names of minor children who have been victims of sex crimes. This is the very essence of allowing punitive damages in our judicial system, by the way.

While things are pretty murky in our country these days, there are still some bright lines on what we'll tolerate - and what we won't. Protecting children seems a no-brainer, even if there's a celebrity factor and even if it's a teenage boy - presumably a 9th grader - who may think it's cool to have a 22-year-old girlfriend.

How long will this boy be used before someone stands up for him?

Britney Pregnancy Watch - Maybe I Should Go to Vegas

One day after I posted my prediction that Britney Spears will be pregnant by April 2008, look what shows up in People magazine and over at Fox.com --

photos of Britney shopping for a pregnancy test with her new paparazzi-boyfriend. Woooooooo -- Scarey.

I'm Betting Britney Spears Is Pregnant Before April 2008

Having worked with enough mothers facing termination of their parental rights, which is different and more serious that a custody fight in a divorce case, I have a different take on all the Britney Spears hoopla.

I've seen mothers shave their heads, and all their other body hair. Why? To avoid a hair follicle test which would reveal their alcohol and drug usage over the past 3 months.

I've seen mothers not see their babies for weeks, or months, at a time. It's not a big issue for them, it's a different perspective.

And, no, I can't say that I understand it. And, yes, lots of these women have serious issues - sometimes, it's mental (bipolar disorder, schizophernia, etc.) and sometimes it's physical (alcoholism, drug additions). Sometimes, it's both. Many folk suffering mental illness tend to self-medicate with booze and drugs. There are also the ones who don't fit into these categories, and just aren't fazed by the separation. There's no easy explanation for this category of mom....

Here's the thing: I've seen a lot of these CPS-case mothers simply get pregnant again. Sometimes, it's with the same husband or boyfriend (the lingo is "paramour" in the courtroom), sometimes it's someone new.

And, having watch Britney's behavior - especially over the last few weeks - I'm betting that she will be pregnant very soon. Without a husband this time.

And, I'm betting that California's Department of Child Protective Services will become involved at that juncture ....

Let's see if I'm right.

Prediction: The Paparazzi Push-Back 2

Earlier this month, I predicted that celebrities would start pushing back against paparazzis themselves.

I used the recent activities of Britney Spears as an example (driving over paparazzi if they refuse to get out of her way, etc.) as well as Nicole Kidman's recent trial testimony on how terrifying the paparazzi can be.

Today, I read that Julia Roberts is pushing back at the paparazzi -- and it's caught on video (see it here).

Seems paparazzi were filming Julia at a school in Los Angeles (presumably, her kids' school, but I don't have confirmation of that). Seeing this, Julia follows them in her Mercedes SUV, honking the horn and waving until they pull over. Then she gets out, and confronts the paparazzi (quoting Breitbart.Com) as they are videotaping her:

"Turn it [the video camera] off," Roberts tells the photographers. "I want to talk to you about the fact that you're at a school where children go. Turn it off."

My prediction: it's one thing when Britney Spears starts to push back, it's another when it's Julia Roberts. Having Julia Roberts do this will, I predict, empower other celebrities to confront the paparazzi, as well.

I also predict that these confrontations are going to get nasty, and physical, as tensions mount. I believe someone is going to get hurt, maybe seriously hurt, in LA before anything is done to deal with these guys.

And, I predict that this victim is going to be a celebrity and it will only be after this tragic circumstance that something will be done about the paparazzi. Princess Di wasn't enough -- she was an icon, and she was across the waters. It's going to be someone close to home, doing something like Julia - protecting kids - who gets really hurt.

And, we'll know about it because the paparazzi will sell that story and those photos, too.

Prediction: The Paparazzi Push-Back Begins

Nicole Kidman testified today in Australia about being hounded by paparazzi in her homeland and especially about one, specific harrowing event where she feared that she was about to be in a car accident. From the Australian Herald Sun, her testimony:

'"I was frightened and I was worried, I was worried about a car accident," she said.

'Her driver, John Manning, sounded "pretty panicked" as he told her about Mr Fawcett's "crazy" driving.

'"I was really frightened and I was in tears, and distressed," she said.

'Kidman said she no longer drove herself because she did not "feel equipped to handle being pursued" by photographers.'

Meanwhile, Britney Spears has begun dealing with the media mob by continuing to slowly drive her car through the crowd -- and two paparazzi have already had their feet run over by her tires. One paparazzi says this isn't her fault, that the paps are getting too close to the car and not moving away in time.

The inquest into Princess Diana's death continues, and while there were predictions then of an increase in paparazzi-induced fatalities, it didn't happen. Times have changed, though, and I predict that celebrities are getting more frazzled and fearful as pararazzi continue to become more brazen and forceful.

My prediction: celebrities are going to start pushing back, like Britney.

And, given the rest of Nicole Kidman's testimony -- bugs found where she was honeymooning with Kevin Urban, for example -- looks like lines are being crossed that should be respected.

No one has much sympathy for the star, and nothing has been done since Diana to stop this mess. Britney's slow-moving, foot-smashing car may be just the beginning of celebrities trying to define a privacy line for themselves. At least, that's what I'm seeing.