Month: October 2011

Chris Dillow reacts to reports of Steve Jobs being a less-than-nice guy, and examines the research (pdf):

Women in the top 25% of agreeableness earn an average of 11.1% less than averagely agreeable women, and the 25% of most agreeable men earn 7.8% less than average. Note that it’s niceness that is penalized, rather than nastiness that’s rewarded; people in the bottom 25% of agreeableness earn no more than average. Heineck says this could be because "agreeable persons are possibly too passive for example in conflict situations or are poorer wage negotiators."

The meek might inherit the earth in the next world, but they don’t get much in this.

That's one tough-looking chihuahua:

Some background:

The creator or of this awesome, tracked costume created the tank from cardboard, paper clips (for the tracks) and even has a real working weapon. Needless to say, TANK DOG destroyed all the puppy pirates and kitty karate masters at the local Petsmart Howl-o-ween costume contest.

Dish runner-up here. Update from a reader: "Neither comes close to this one."

Freek Vermeulen looks to evolutionary psychology to explain Steve Jobs' deification in spite of convincing evidence that he was kind of a dick:

We are inclined to deify successful people in the public eye, and in our time that certainly includes CEOs. In the past, in various cultures, it may have been ancient warriors, Olympians, or saints. They became mythical and transcended humanity, quite literally reaching God-like status. Historians and geneticists argue that this inclination for deification is actually deeply embedded in the human psyche, and we have evolved to be prone to worship.

There is increasing consensus that man came to dominate the earth – and for instance drive out Neanderthalers, who were in fact stronger, likely more intelligent, and had more sophisticated tools – because of our superior ability to organize into larger social systems. And a crucial role in this, fostering social cohesion, was religion, which centers on myths and deities. This inclination for worship very likely became embedded into our genetic system, and it is yearning to come out and be satisfied, and great people such as Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, and Lady Di serve to fulfill this need. 

William Ryerson freaks out about population growth:

The combination of rising oil prices and declining water could lead to a perfect storm where suddenly all these things lead to human catastrophe around the planet. A report that came out in the last couple of months by two biologists looking at global biodiversity has shown that biodiversity is declining globally and the 100,000 preserves that have been set up are doing nothing to protect biodiversity. Spreading human habitation is systematically reducing the life support system of our planet. Cutting down large rainforests is a major aggravator of climate change. It took 3 billion years of evolution to make our planet habitable for humans. Setting up large zoos – which is what reserves are – isn’t going to protect us. We are risking the long term habitability of the planet. Some scientists think that humans could be extinct by the end of the century.

Erik Loomis thinks global inequality is the bigger environmental issue. Marc Bellemare is exasperated by the negativity:

[I[ncreases in agricultural productivity have consistently outpaced the rate at which the world’s population continues to increases. This has been true since the beginning of time, so why worry now?

Joshua Goldstein downplays the fear that we might start to fight over resources. Previous Dish discussion of the 7 billion mark here, here and here.

It's on the rise:

Right now, [John] Freeman [editor of Granta's new honor issue] says, if you define horror widely enough, it’s everywhere. “We live in a culture absolutely saturated with violence,” he says, whether it’s in the form of zombies and vampires or in conflict reporting or memoirs of illness. To quarantine horror in a genre is to ignore how much of the culture revolves around things we’re afraid of, he says. And the ubiquity of horror, and the crossover of literary writers into the genre, Freeman says, is nothing to despair over. “It’s a way to sublimate the fears we have as humans, and it shows a great belief in the power of narrative to both sublimate those fears and to help us ask the questions they raise.”

A reader writes:

I am a management side employment lawyer, so I have all those anti-plaintiff biases, but also over 15 years practicing in this area. I am no fan of Cain, but I think you are moving way too fast on this one.

Remember that the vast, vast majority of these claims are settled without regard to the merit of the charge because the costs of defense just don’t justify litigating them. You can blame defense lawyer fees, but potential bad publicity and a need to avoid the distraction from the mission entailed in a divisive trial are also motivators. As such, it is simply not true that a financial payment is a “clear indication” of behavior that bordered or crossed the line. Again, it may play out that way, but a payment by itself is a sign of an organization that chose to avoid the litigation route, period. Even allegations that do not border on legal sexual harassment are routinely settled in this manner.

(I will grant that the amount of the settlement usually bears some correlation to the perceived merit of the allegations, so we should be on the lookout for any reporting there, but for a public organization like the Restaurant Association, I would not ascribe any real concern to a number below $75,000 and even then, there could be factors other than the merit that drove the number up.) Moreover, most of these cases are settled on terms that require both sides to remain silent.

Obviously, Cain’s silence when asked about being accused could be the sign of a guilty conscience, but it could also be the reaction of someone who knows that (1) he’s contractually bound not to speak to this topic and (2) speaking could open the door to the plaintiff’s right to respond in kind. No question that he’s trying to weigh the political calculus too, but we should not conflate the “have you ever been accused” question with the “did you do it” question. It is by no means clear that he will have to “cop to” sexual harassment – only having been accused.

Finally, you are correct that people who are willing to sexually harass co-workers are frequently repeat offenders – so, yes, there could be more accusers coming IF he was guilty the first time. But just keep in mind that his conduct so far doesn’t tell us much one way or the other.

Very helpful context. My point about the payments being some kind of proof of impropriety probably shouldn't stand.

The Fox interview is above. Ed Morrissey is satisfied:

This is a much better response than the one offered last night in response to the Politico story.  It acknowledges that Cain had to deal with accusations, and puts him on the record with a strong denial specific to them.  Unless Politico reveals more about the nature of the complaints and the women involved come forward, this will likely be enough to keep Cain in the game …

David Kurtz cautions:

I’ve seen the purported payments from the National Restaurant Association to the two women Cain allegedly harassed described as hush money. That’s silly and comes at the problem only from the point of view of the NRA. There’s little upside in female employees going public with these kinds of allegations. That’s especially true in the insular world of DC trade associations, where the number of employers is relatively small and employment opportunities can be limited. So keeping it quiet could have certainly been in their interest, too… I’d be careful about jumping from the apparent fact that the NRA settled to the conclusion that the allegations were credible and well-founded. The two don’t always go hand in hand. We need more facts on that score than what are in the Politico story.

Michelle Goldberg takes stock:

As Sarah Palin demonstrated, the GOP base is eager to rally around those who seem to be victimized by a mainstream media they hate. But as Palin also demonstrated, eventually, evidence of venality and incompetence seeps in with the public at large. If Cain ever had a serious shot at the presidency, these charges would certainly hurt him. But he didn’t. The only thing he has to gain from this race is the mantle of conservative folk hero, and maybe Fox News contributor. And in that campaign, it looks like he’s still doing just fine.

If that's the criterion, it could even help him with the base. And on cue, drum roll for Coulter:

"Liberals are terrified of Herman Cain. He is a strong conservative black man. Look at the way they go after Allen West and Michael Steele and they aren't even running against Obama. They are terrified of strong, conservative, black men," Coulter said.

Are we really headed for another "high-tech lynching" drama? I suspect the "liberal media line" will become Cain's line of defense. And so the conservative movement gets what it always wants and always needs: a big old right-left 1990s-style set piece. God help us.

So we have two new data points: Cain denies any serious impropriety and denies knowledge of the payments to the women, the critical evidence of serious impropriety:

Mr. Cain said that he was not aware of the details of any financial settlement paid by the National Restaurant Association. He declared, “I hope it wasn’t for much because nothing happened.”

He really had no idea that his own organization had arranged compensation in the five figures to two women claiming harassment? So who did authorize this? And how did it get by Cain himself? Was he that off-hand a manager?

Then this rather amazing fact: he has been aware of this story for ten days, and yet seemed completely incapable of responding. AEI kept questions at bay, and then he goes on Fox for a friendly chat. The legacy of Palin endures. But even she knew in the end that this kind of national spotlight is a brutal personal vetting.

"OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW." – Steve Jobs' last words [NYT].