Is there a difference between being a rape victim and getting an unwanted touch or kiss or pinch on the backside?
A site to discuss better education for all
Categories Education Reform
112 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Search All Posts
Previous posts
- May 2023 (115)
- April 2023 (136)
- March 2023 (129)
- February 2023 (113)
- January 2023 (115)
- December 2022 (111)
- November 2022 (97)
- October 2022 (100)
- September 2022 (103)
- August 2022 (120)
- July 2022 (111)
- June 2022 (112)
- May 2022 (120)
- April 2022 (105)
- March 2022 (120)
- February 2022 (96)
- January 2022 (94)
- December 2021 (98)
- November 2021 (77)
- October 2021 (79)
- September 2021 (78)
- August 2021 (74)
- July 2021 (82)
- June 2021 (69)
- May 2021 (66)
- April 2021 (72)
- March 2021 (103)
- February 2021 (140)
- January 2021 (169)
- December 2020 (142)
- November 2020 (160)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (170)
- August 2020 (175)
- July 2020 (191)
- June 2020 (195)
- May 2020 (205)
- April 2020 (203)
- March 2020 (197)
- February 2020 (165)
- January 2020 (180)
- December 2019 (194)
- November 2019 (185)
- October 2019 (199)
- September 2019 (169)
- August 2019 (172)
- July 2019 (169)
- June 2019 (193)
- May 2019 (203)
- April 2019 (195)
- March 2019 (187)
- February 2019 (160)
- January 2019 (201)
- December 2018 (204)
- November 2018 (213)
- October 2018 (213)
- September 2018 (186)
- August 2018 (190)
- July 2018 (196)
- June 2018 (190)
- May 2018 (225)
- April 2018 (221)
- March 2018 (242)
- February 2018 (182)
- January 2018 (212)
- December 2017 (224)
- November 2017 (188)
- October 2017 (240)
- September 2017 (239)
- August 2017 (237)
- July 2017 (235)
- June 2017 (224)
- May 2017 (267)
- April 2017 (265)
- March 2017 (284)
- February 2017 (262)
- January 2017 (355)
- December 2016 (239)
- November 2016 (274)
- October 2016 (219)
- September 2016 (218)
- August 2016 (211)
- July 2016 (217)
- June 2016 (219)
- May 2016 (233)
- April 2016 (229)
- March 2016 (242)
- February 2016 (244)
- January 2016 (247)
- December 2015 (230)
- November 2015 (233)
- October 2015 (292)
- September 2015 (262)
- August 2015 (268)
- July 2015 (252)
- June 2015 (254)
- May 2015 (277)
- April 2015 (290)
- March 2015 (322)
- February 2015 (281)
- January 2015 (247)
- December 2014 (225)
- November 2014 (226)
- October 2014 (287)
- September 2014 (283)
- August 2014 (271)
- July 2014 (258)
- June 2014 (281)
- May 2014 (284)
- April 2014 (330)
- March 2014 (358)
- February 2014 (308)
- January 2014 (282)
- December 2013 (260)
- November 2013 (270)
- October 2013 (342)
- September 2013 (358)
- August 2013 (373)
- July 2013 (336)
- June 2013 (347)
- May 2013 (348)
- April 2013 (369)
- March 2013 (379)
- February 2013 (296)
- January 2013 (342)
- December 2012 (328)
- November 2012 (270)
- October 2012 (366)
- September 2012 (475)
- August 2012 (463)
- July 2012 (372)
- June 2012 (209)
- May 2012 (120)
- April 2012 (17)
-
Recent posts
Blog Topics
Accountability Betsy DeVos Billionaires Budget Cuts California Charter Schools Chicago Common Core Corporate Reform Corporate Reformers Democracy Duncan, Arne Education Industry Education Reform Failure Florida For-Profit Fraud Funding Gates Foundation, Bill Gates International Los Angeles New York New York City Ohio Parents Privatization Race to the Top Resistance School Choice Standardized Testing Students Teacher Evaluations Teachers Teachers and Teaching Testing Texas Trump Unions Vouchers
Top posts
- Literacy Experts: There Is No “Science of Reading”
- Pro Publica: How NYC’s Success Academy Deals with “Difficult” Children
- “Scientific American” Editorial Board Warns About DeSantis “Anti-Science Agenda”
- Jim Hightower: Why Texas GOP Loves the Bible
- Texas: NO VOUCHERS IN TEXAS! ABBOTT VOWS TO CALL SPECIAL SESSION!
- Memorial Day: Dangers to Our Democracy
- Michael Hiltzik: The Debt Ceiling Deal: GOP Protects the Rich, Punishes the Poor
- DeSantis: “There’s No Book Banning in Florida.” Really?
- What Happened at New College Since the DeSantis Coup
- Florida: The Banning of Amanda Gorman’s Poem Is Shameful
-
Follow blog via RSS reader
-
Diane Ravitch's Blog by Diane Ravitch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at dianeravitch.net. Blog Stats
- 40,620,723 hits
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I agree with her. Tweedan could have spoken up years ago or she could have kept it secret forever. The fact that she decided to come forward at this time and with political motivation is a testament to her lies. Real survivors have a right to be angry about this.
How is she “lying?” She has photographic PROOF that Franken was doing inappropriate things to her.
She IS a real victim, and Franken is a REAL perpetrator. Full stop.
Of course there is. But this kind of line-drawing is risky business. In the linked article, it veers very close to “you knew what you were getting into.”
I agree. Which is why Al Franken called for a real investigation. Where she is questioned under oath by both sides. As is Al Franken. As are witnesses who were there at the time.
NYC PSP,
Your comment points out the huge problem with university investigations of these kinds of incidents. Universities do not have subpoena power so no one can be compelled to testify in a university investigation and university investigators can not question anyone under oath.
NYC public school parent
Look at that we have another thing we agree on. Pretty soon you’ll lay off Bernie and Liz . Don’t start it was a joke .
teachingeconomist,
Your comment is evidence of a huge misunderstanding between the university’s (and any company’s) ability to fire someone or have a student leave their school AND the right of someone not to be thrown in jail.
There are all kinds of accusations that one employee makes against another or one student makes against another.
It doesn’t require subpoena power for a company to fire someone. Nor does it require subpoena power for a university to tell a student to leave. If a professor accuses a student of using crib notes on a test but doesn’t have a video of the cheating, the university investigates and makes a judgement as to who is telling the truth. Without subpoena power.
The same thing happens in companies. Someone might get fired because a boss doesn’t like them and lies about their performance. The person getting fired doesn’t get subpoena power before getting fired.
In the case of these women charging politicians, there should be proper investigations, just as Al Franken has called for. The women who accused Bill Clinton had the benefit of an investigator with subpoena power. If anything, it was relatively unfair for Clinton because the only person with subpoena power was someone who wanted the person to be telling the truth. And even then he knew there were too many questions that would be raised if the other side was able to ask questions too.
When these accusations are political, we need investigations. I don’t think any of Trump’s accusers mind an investigation with their charges and Trump and any witnesses they want to call forced to answer questions from both sides under oath.
I don’t think Franken minds that and I assume his accusers would be more than happy to go under oath to tell their story and be willing to answer questions from Franken’s attorneys under oath. And witnesses who were there would also be called.
NYC PSP,
When you said that “Al Franken called for a real investigation. Where she is questioned under oath by both sides” I was not aware that you were discussing ” the right of someone not to be thrown in jail.”
Did Al Franken actually call for a real investigation that would determine if he is thrown in jail? I was not aware of this. The press, no doubt, missed this very subtle point.
My point was a simple one. If “real investigations” require witnesses to be questioned under oath by both sides, universities are not able to carry out real investigations. It is your standard for what is a real investigation.
Perhaps you would like to revise your statement to say that real investigations do not require questioning under oath.
Is there a difference between Obama mistakenly telling people “if you like your health insurance you can keep it under our program” and Trump and the Republican’s blatant and non-stop disregard for the truth or facts? Is there a difference between Al Gore saying “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (which he did) and Donald Trump saying “I have Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate”?
The right wing wants the public to think it is both the same. Since no person in history has ever managed to say something that can’t be twisted into a lie with the help of the right ing propaganda, it gives the right wing carte blanche to excuse blatant lying and misleading of the American people.
It’s a new thing. Back when Bush and Cheney (finally) were exposed as liars who claimed Saddam had WMD, the media didn’t help the right push the false equivalency of “Bill Clinton denied having an affair so why shouldn’t our President be able to lie to get us into a war, and we refuse to support any investigation because lies are okay now.” The matter wasn’t dropped.
But now the media HELPS the right wing in its false equivalency. So you have Al Franken as no different than Judge Moore or Trump.
What I think Democrats and the media should do is insist on an investigation of EVERYTHING.
As soon as there is an attack on a Democrat, you say “that’s why we are getting Al Franken AND Judge Moore and Trump under oath to answer questions and all their accusers will also go under oath to answer questions.”
The left helped the right with their false equivalency with their attacks on Bill Clinton as a rapist. Wrong. EVERY woman who accused Bill Clinton had the most powerful prosecutor in history with total subpoena power to investigate every charge against him. And that prosecutor had unlimited money, time and only one goal — to “get” Clinton.
So pretending that those charges are in any way similar to those against Trump is how some non-right wing people who hate Clinton help the right do their dirty work.
Again, the answer should always be, let’s INVESTIGATE and get everyone under oath.
I don’t know how well the charges against Al Franken will hold up with an investigation. I would like to hear his accusers be asked real questions about the things that don’t add up.
When Starr tried to confirm the charges against Clinton, they became much more suspect. Instead of his investigation finding evidence to support the charges, it just revealed evidence that made them look suspicious. So he dropped them and made sure NOT to include any exonerating evidence in his charge.
If Judge Moore and Trump were subject to the same investigation as Bill Clinton without finding any supporting evidence, I would accept that the charges might be false and that there is certainly no way of knowing.
But with Democrats, they are fully investigated, no evidence is found, and they are STILL called “guilty”. With Republicans they don’t allow investigations at all.
It needs to stop. The media should be insisting that all charges against all the accused be fully investigated and so should the public.
I posted this to Facebook, and a Facebook friend said she had been raped in her youth —she had mentioned this before—and totally agreed with this essay. She used her name, but I probably shouldn’t here. Also Tweeden’s participation in Fox News—a fountain of lies to attack Democrats and an organization practically set up for sexual exploitation of women—makes her claims really suspect. When you add that she had willingly participated in raunchy and sexually provocative USO shows, for years—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJidGI-NMd0—it makes her testimony suspect in a way that you can legitimately say very rarely.
And now Garrison Keillor goes down.
Greetings from Lake Wobegun
Comparing Franken to a pedophile or rapist is another false equivalency. The right wing would like nothing better than for Franken to step down, but I think he should ride out the storm. His star may be tarnished, but he is one of the few Democrats that can put the Republicans on the defensive. The Democrats need him to be a thorn in the side of the devious Republican hacks.
It is not just the timing of the accusations that is concerning, and perhaps Franken is a good actor. While he apologized for anything he may have done, he genuinely seemed not to recall the details of his misdeeds as some of the claimants may be fronting for right wing interests and taking advantage of Franken’s negative press. The women that worked with Franken on Saturday Night Live have claimed that Franken never behaved inappropriately in the free wheeling early days of the show. There is no overwhelming, or damning evidence that Franken is a predator.
All over the CTA there are signs posted saying “If it’s unwanted, it’s harassment.” We teach kids as young as two or three that “no one may touch you where your bathing suit covers.” These are pretty simple concepts. It’s called consent. If you don’t have it, keep your damn hands to yourself.
The only reason this is “okay” is that it happens to women and girls and we’ve long been conditioned that “that’s just the way it is, sweetie”. But look how fast Kevin Spacey went down when he was accused of doing similar things to men and boys.
Can people honestly say that if a GOP senator was accused of doing exactly what Franken is accused of doing that they wouldn’t be calling for his head? He’s been accused by four women now. How many more does it take?
It takes a real investigation.
Maybe Al Franken was a serial groper but generally when those people are like that there are more than 4 — where two are entirely suspect.
(FYI – when you are inappropriately groped by a Senator and are disgusted by it, you don’t normally post it on your Facebook page with no comment at all. It wasn’t until her sister posted a joke comment to the photo: “Sorry, but you two aren’t Bibles (sic) width apart” that the victim then said “Al Franken TOTALLY molested me”. She obviously had no fear whatsoever to mention that she was molested, and yet she decided to post the photo on Facebook as if she was proud of it.)
I realize the “victims” of sexual assaults don’t behave the same way, but to imagine that this “victim” is the same as the victim of a real sexual assault is offensive to real victims. Real rape victims don’t usually then put their photo smiling happily with their rapist on Facebook. And at some point, while no woman reacts exactly the same, there has to be some kind of discernment about when a victim is bothered by something and when they aren’t.
You only have to look at Taylor Swift’s body language in her “groper” photo and compare it to this woman. And supposedly the second victim was groped and squeezed very hard — much worse than Swift.
I’m not calling this woman a liar and I WANT an investigation. But I want an investigation of ALL charges by a prosecutor. Not this double standard.
So you can tell by a woman’s facial expression in a photo whether or not she was “really” groped. You should hire yourself out as an expert witness.
I’m also curious about this: “And supposedly the second victim was groped and squeezed very hard — much worse than Swift.” How does anyone know this? Did this second victim have a talk with Swift in which they compared the pressure of their respective butt squeezes? Is there some device or scale that measures butt squeezes?
I guess my issue is this whole notion of relative suffering. “Well, you were only groped, while I was actually raped.” Really? We need to have that kind of contest? What’s wrong with saying “if it’s unwanted, it’s harassment”? What’s wrong with saying, “no one should touch where your bathing suit covers without your consent”? What’s wrong with “no means no”? Period.
I think “no means no” gets the job done in terms of setting a standard of acceptable conduct. Where it falls short, unfortunately, is in setting standards for punishment.
There are real differences between rape and unwanted groping. Rape is an act of violence. Groping can and should get a forceful NO, or if that doesn’t work, a fist in the face or a knee to the groin.
It concerns me that a double standard is emerging based on party affiliation.
Democrats admit they were wrong and apologize, then face calls for their resignation.
Republicans (Trump and Moore) deny everything, say the women are lying, and that’s the end of the matter. They both get elected because they said it never happened.
I agree that we should say “no one should touch you without consent”.
Do you agree that you investigate claims and do not automatically believe every woman making a charge?
Look, I think the Duke boys lacrosse team were a horrible bunch of the nastiest people. I think they did something nasty to the woman who charged them with rape. I don’t know what it was. I do know that one of the teammates sent an e-mail talking about sexually assaulting women and flaying off their skin.
What should happen to those boys on the Duke lacrosse team? I am not sure what you believe at this point.
How exactly would you investigate? Tweeden has a picture of him grabbing her breasts and leering at the camera while she slept. Other than that, what do you think would constitute “proof”? The whole nature of sexual assault is that it’s done clandestinely and there are not generally witnesses. If no one can be found to corroborate these women’s stories, do you believe them or not?
As for the Duke boys (I realize you’re deflecting, but I’ll play anyway), there is rarely enough evidence for a criminal prosecution in cases like that, so I think expecting them to be prosecuted is a pipe dream. Nonetheless, I think there is ample evidence that they were not remotely of a character that Duke should allow to reflect its student body and I think Duke would be more than justified in throwing them out.
dienne77,
It is comments like this that make you so often sound like a right wing troll:
“Tweeden has a picture of him grabbing her breasts and leering at the camera while she slept.”
Talk about a mischaracterization. If I read this and didn’t know how you push these kinds of dishonest right wing tropes all the time and actually believed you were telling the truth, I would agree with you that Franken was guilty. OMG there is absolute evidence of Franken grabbing a woman’s breasts while she slept! Of course he needs to be charged with a crime and thrown in jail. He grabbed a woman’s breasts. Case closed.
Only you are completely mischaracterizing the evidence in the exact way the right wing did. Here is the truth:
Al Franken took a photo in which he is fake groping a sleeping woman whose breasts are completely encased in a flack jacket that is supposed to protect against artillery so I don’t think Franken “grabbed” any part of her breasts, which would be virtually impossible.
He is obviously meant to be funny since he is intentionally leering at the camera. I think the photo is obnoxious, in bad taste, and offensive to Tweeden. I can’t imagine what was the USO and photographer’s mind that they would think that photo was so benign that they would include it in a souvenir reel they sent to all participants, but they did. Maybe it is because the entire USO tour was filled with that kind of innuendo and humor that is very offensive to women.
I would like to see the OTHER photographs on that souvenir album of photos to see if this was the only offensive photo.
For you to say that the photo is Franken “grabbing her breasts” when it is clear he is fake grabbing her breasts as a joke is shocking. Posing for a bad taste photo in which you pretend you are punching a man in the face is not the same as a photo in which you are intentionally punching a man in the face.
If the man is wearing a knight’s helmet covering his face when you pretend to punch him in the face, most people would understand that you are not punching him in the face. It doesn’t make it “funny”. It can still be wrong. But anyone who claimed that the photo proved you punched a man in the face would be lying.
Sigh. First, I didn’t say anything about him being thrown in jail – this is exactly what I mean by you putting words in my mouth, and it’s really, really tiring.
Second, though, oh, yes, it was all just a big joke and shame on her for not laughing along! Well, isn’t that what they all say? Humorless feminists! Sheesh.
And third, perhaps you can enlighten me on the boundaries of what women can wear with or without allowing for groping. Had she been wearing a thick winter coat, would it have been okay for him to grab her breasts? What about a fleece jacket? Thick sweater? What exact level of clothing says “grope me”?
“The whole nature of sexual assault is that it’s done clandestinely and there are not generally witnesses. ”
As usual, you make the nastiest of innuendos that Al Franken is guilty of “sexual assault” and then say “but I didn’t say throw him into jail.”
Sorry, if I misunderstood what you meant.
Al Franken FAKE groped her. I can’t imagine what personal agenda you have that you have to keep characterizing it as if it is intentional groping (which WOULD be a sexual assault). But I don’t trust you at all anymore. Your inability to tell the truth about things mirrors the right wing far too often.
Diane – the Democrats have no control over the Republicans. If the Republicans want to be the party of gropers, that’s their business. It’s the difference between getting annoyed at other people’s children running around the restaurant and your own running around the restaurant. You can do something about the latter and it is incumbent upon you to do so.
FLERP! says:
“I think “no means no” gets the job done in terms of setting a standard of acceptable conduct.”
Even Tweeden’s own account is that once she made it clear to Franken she didn’t want to be kissed, he didn’t kiss her.
Apparently they continued to do that routine and Franken wasn’t continuing to use his time on stage to “get away” with more sexual assault of her.
Dienne
Let me help you.
A woman should always — always — wear full hockey goalie gear (chest protector, hockey pants, giant leg pads, and face mask) whenever she gets on a plane.
And wear skates and have a stick handy, of course, to fend off unwanted advances.
It wouldn’t hurt to have a puck in her glove while she sleeps, either.
Hope that helps.
Some DAM poet says:
“A woman should always — always — wear full hockey goalie gear (chest protector, hockey pants, giant leg pads, and face mask) whenever she gets on a plane.”
Way to completely miss the point.
I don’t know why you find it so difficult to comprehend that it is NOT “blaming the woman” if you point out the evidence that exists that a man might have been joking instead of trying to sexually assault someone.
There is a difference between sexual assault and being the victim of an inappropriate sexual joke. That is the point of the woman’s article.
But how dare I keep you and dienne from your unwavering belief that the photo shows Al Franken sexually assaulting a woman — after all, you are absolutely certain he groped her and the photo proves it. There is nothing at all in the photograph that would lead us to believe Franken is making an offensive joke. Nope, it’s evidence of sexual groping, as dienne knows.
Is that right?
NYCSP
You are talking BS.
I made it PERFECtLy clear in my comment below that Franken was pretending to grope her breasts.
Given the fact that you responded to that specific comment, I must conclude that you either can’t read, chose not to read or are quite purposefully misrepresenting what I said.
Which is it?
I am sorry, I did not read through every one of your comments. So my answer is “I didn’t read it” . Mea culpa.
dienne77 has repeatedly said that the video is evidence that Al Franken was groping. Not pretending to grope. Actual groping.
The reason dienne77 and I are discussing what Tweeden was wearing is because it would be near impossible to ascertain if Franken was groping or not groping if she was wearing normal clothes or even a regular jacket. I think it is silly to measure a shadow because in the next second Franken could have his hands on her without the shadow.
What makes it clear — at least to me — that it is PRETEND groping is that she is wearing a flack jacket. The “shadow” is simply additional evidence. But if Tweeden was wearing a shirt, I would not be impressed with the “shadow” defense. It’s lame. To me, the fact she is wearing a flack jacket is why he is clearly just PRETENDING to grope her and not actually groping her. You don’t grope a person wearing a flack jacket.
And you don’t “grope” a person wearing full goalie equipment that protects their chest.
I can’t believe I am having this ridiculous argument with people who just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.
REAL sexual assaulters do not look for victims wearing protective armor over the place where they are attempting to grope. Whether it is a flack jacket or a hockey goalie’s protective covering.
If you disagree with me, that’s fine. But you aren’t going to convince me that a guy faking a grope of a person wearing protective goalie hockey equipment or a flack jacket was actually trying to sexually assault the person or really try to “grope”. He was doing something offensive, but that “something” is not sexual assault.
Not incidentally, the fact that Franken was pretending to grope her does not let him off the hook.
Far from it.
The photo is a form of mental abuse.
It was put on a CD so that she would see it.
The so called “joke” was AT HER EXPENSE.
I agree with SOME of your comments.
“Not incidentally, the fact that Franken was pretending to grope her does not let him off the hook.”
I agree. He is on the hook. He acknowledged he was wrong. No one is saying that what he did was fine.
But in what world does that fact that Franken was wrong and did something wrong justify lying about what it is he did wrong? He did not grope her. So why insist that he did? I just asked dienne77 to use facts instead of lies. If that bothers you, then sue me. I will keep replying to posters who post untruthful things. And if I post something untrue, I am fine with someone correcting it. That is what a discussion board SHOULD be about.
The fact that I have to spend this much effort to explain that a pretend grope is different than a real grope is ridiculous. That is the point of this article. A pretend grope – even in jest – is offensive and wrong. It is NOT as offensive as a real grope which is a sexual assault, period.
“The so called “joke” was AT HER EXPENSE.” I agree. And it is clearly not funny in any way. That is why he apologized and didn’t make any excuses for it. It was stupid and he can’t believe he would have ever thought it was funny.
“The photo is a form of mental abuse. It was put on a CD so that she would see it.” Nope. We don’t know if this is true or not. Which is why I support an investigation before we tar and feather the “criminal” and ride him on the rails out of town.
Why is my opinion so controversial? What part of it causes you to attack me?
NYCSP says in reply to me “what world does that fact that Franken was wrong and did something wrong justify lying about what it is he did wrong? He did not grope her. So why insist that he did”
This is the last time I am going to say this to you because my tolerance for your BS claims about what I have said has reached it’s bitter end.
I NEVER insisted that Franken groped the woman in the picture.
In fact, as I already pointed out to you just above (!)I made it eminently clear in my original comment below that I believe he was pretending to grope her (which is just sick, in my opinion)
I would also point out again that before you made any of the comments just above, you had already replied DIRECTLY to my comment below where I stated quite unequivocally that he was pretending to grope her.
Not only that, in your direct reply to my comment, you repeated verbatim parts of the very sentence where I made that crystal clear
To refresh your memory (which seems to be rather short)
Here’s my sentence:
Is it really too much to expect that we NOT have Senators who think (or at least thought, at the the adolescent age of 55) that it is (was) funny to have their picture taken pretending to grope the breasts of a sleeping woman?
And here’s your sentence where you repeated parts of mine
“Is it really too much to expect that we NOT have “entertainment”…
And just a few sentences later you included a reference to the “55” part of my statement, which was immediately followed by the last part of my sentence ” that it is (was) funny to have their picture taken pretending to grope the breasts of a sleeping woman?”
So your “mea culpa” that “I did not read through every one of your comments” rings hollow.
You either read the comment in question and ignored the last part of the very sentence you quoted or you have quite purposefully been misrepresenting what I said.
Normally I choose to just ignore BS, but there is one thing I won’t tolerate. People claiming I said something I never did.
If you take that as “attacking” you, so be it.
Yeh, I know.
I should have taken my own advice …
I’ve moved too close
And feel the pull
I can’t oppose
The blackest hole
I might resist
And Lord I’ve tried
But death is kissed
Spaghettified
Some DAM poet,
Why are you attacking me because I asked dienne77 to tell the truth about something she was not telling the truth about?
You’ve really jumped the shark when asking someone to speak truthfully about issues is laughed off as “spaghettified”.
I wish I could be as blase and get as much amusement as FLERP! and you do about what is happening to this country.
I’d try to be as cynical as FLERP! is to gain your approval and avoid your wrath, but frankly, as much as I admire your excellent poems, your good opinion isn’t worth lying for. dienne77 said something that is untrue. And your nasty attacks on me won’t stop me from pointing it out. No doubt you’ll want to make another jeer at me, so have at it.
dienne77 kept posting that the photo showed Al Franken grabbing Tweeden’s breasts, and even when I pointed out that it did not show that she continued to write that it did. Believing she was a rational person, I wasted my time explaining why it was not actual groping.
I’m sorry I mistook your defense of dienne77’s untruths as a sign that you believed those untruths yourself. You don’t. I should have realized your anger at me when I asked her not to repeat that lie had nothing to do with you believing that lie yourself but was simply …well… I’m not sure what it was. I’ve never met someone in real life who knew someone was saying something that was absolutely wrong and yet defended them from the person who was asking them to correct what they were saying. I admit I was very puzzled that so much of your anger was directed at me for asking that dienne77 use facts instead of untruths, especially after you proved to me that you also knew that what she was saying wasn’t true.
No doubt you will find this answer deserving of more “spaghettification” attacks on me and I know FLERP! gets a kick out of it, so please don’t stop on my account.
Because I won’t stop on yours. Next time someone posts something that I know isn’t true, I might post to try to correct the record again. Tough.
^^After re-reading your reply above I am going to confess to something that will shock you.
When I reply to what someone writes in one thread, I do not first examine all of the 60 or 80 comments in other threads on that page before I reply. Does everyone? If so, again, I guess I just don’t know all the rules.
Sometimes I may remember a post in a different thread because whatever was said is so outrageously wrong and misleading that it sticks with me. But if there are 80 or 90 replies on a long thread, I might actually reply to the same person twice where I agree with that person’s comment in one place and disagree with a different point that the same person made much further down the thread. I don’t pay that much attention to who it is who writes every comment that I reply to. I read the content of the post and the thread it is in and take it at face value.
I responded to a snarky comment you made in a thread in which I was trying to get dienne77 to stop repeating the right wing propaganda that the photo proved that Al Franken actually groped Tweeden. So when you posted to support dienne77, I assumed it was because you agreed with her. I took what you wrote at face value and I did not check for other posts you had made further down the page in different threads. I responded to what you wrote in THAT thread. When you corrected me, I acknowledged my error. But I also questioned why you would be so angry at me for trying to get dienne77 to correct what we apparently both agreed was a misstatement of the facts.
I still don’t get it. But, whatever.
Sorry, but there is a very damning picture of Franken leering at the camera with his hands above the breasts of a sleeping woman. I’m sure you’ve seen it and even he hasn’t said the photo was faked. There’s also the fact that Tweeden has accused him of forcing a kiss on her, “mashing” his face against hers and putting his tongue in her mouth. You can believe or not believe that, I suppose.
Definition of sexual assault, per the DOJ: “Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.”
As for him going to jail, that would require a criminal trial at which the prosecutor would have to meet a minimum standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not going to happen with Franken or most of these “men” [sic]. That doesn’t mean these men aren’t disgusting chauvinists who think they can take possession of women’s bodies at will.
There are standards expected in most lines of employment – being a U.S. Senator I would think should carry among the highest expectations (yes, sadly, I realize…). Most of us, when we violate the standards set by our employers, find ourselves unemployed. That’s what I think should happen to Franken.
Why did you leave out that the sleeping woman was wearing a flack jacket that completely covered her breasts? You may think that the flack jacket is meaningless but that is why the photo seemed acceptable to everyone there, including the USO who included it in their souvenir album and sent it to everyone.
Al Franken has acknowledged that it was wrong of him to pose for that photo. I agree that the photo is offensive.
But he isn’t grabbing her breasts. He is fake grabbing her breasts encased in a flack jacket. And while you don’t want to acknowledge that there is any difference, there is. Your false equivalency is exactly what the article is about.
Again, I’ll ask, what level of clothing does a woman wear that makes it okay or not okay to grab her breasts? Why is the flak jacket relevant? If she were wearing a winter coat, would that be okay? Fleece? Thick sweater? Thin sweater? What level of clothing means “grope away”?
“Why is the flack jacket relevant?”
Really? It doesn’t speak to the fact that the photo was intended to be a joke and that he couldn’t physically be touching her breasts?
If the ONLY women who accused Judge Moore or Donald Trump of assault said that they were wearing a bullet proof vest at the time that those men grabbed their breasts, you think that woman would be taken seriously?
If I may be so bold to suggest, NYCPP, I think this flak jacket business has you straying from the argument you actually want to be making. If someone grabs a woman’s breast through her shirt, through her bra, through her jacket, or through any other article of clothing, that’s still a breast-grab. Groping does not require skin-to-skin contact. I think what you want to be arguing is that it does not appear that Franken’s hands were actually physically in contact with any part of the woman’s clothed body. The principle there would be “no physical contact, no grope.” You don’t want to be relying on a principle of “groping doesn’t count if it’s done through thick clothing.” Because that would just be goofy. IMHO.
FLERP!
Please don’t be so bold as to speak for me.
If Al Franken had taken that same photo and Tweeden was wearing a bikini top, I would not be spending time figuring out if his hands were or were not actually touching the bikini top. It would clearly be about him groping her breasts.
The HUMOR is that she is wearing a flack jacket, which is likely why Franken (very wrongly) didn’t immediately think “boy this is really offensive”. And it is why no one else on the plane thought it was offensive. And it is why no one at the USO or whoever distributed the souvenir photos thought it was offensive.
Sorry, just trying to help. Seemed to me that the flak-jacket argument was not your best argument.
^^And equating a flack jacket that is designed to prevent artillery fire from coming into contact with your breast with wearing any clothing is just nonsense. If she was wearing a knight’s costume encased with armor, would you really have to argue whether his hands were or were not actually touching the armor?
Surely you aren’t arguing that the flack jacket is irrelevant. It’s the reason no one who was there thought the photo was a real sexual assault. They weren’t closely examining whether Franken’s fingers were touching or not touching the flack jacket.
FLERP!,
Are you saying the flack jacket is entirely irrelevant?
Yeah, I don’t see the jacket being very relevant. It didn’t occur to me that the jacket was part of the joke. Perhaps it was; I get the logic, but it seems a bit of a stretch. The joke to me seems to be a basic kind of slapstick: Leering Man Grabs Sleeping Woman’s Breasts. A marginally more sophisticated version of the kind of photos that frat bros take with passed out frat bros. In any event, I agree that the alleged “grope” was a “mock-grope.” It seemed clear to me that his hands weren’t actually on her.
“It didn’t occur to me that the flack jacket was part of the joke” ???
Really? Because I doubt if Franken would have taken that photo if she wasn’t wearing the flack jacket.
Do you really think that the USO would have thought the photo was appropriate if she had not been wearing a flack jacket but Al Franken’s hands were about to grope her regularly clothed breasts? If I had seen a photo like that, I would have assumed that he touched her breasts the next second or right before or after. It would be clearly inappropriate and I would find myself wondering whether Al was trying to “cop a feel” (as they said in my day) under the guise of “I’m just making a joke, what’s the big deal?” And I’d think he had a problem.
But the fact that she is wearing a flack jacket is what makes me absolutely certain that this was never about a guy trying to grab a woman’s breasts under the pretense that he was joking.
Now maybe some other evidence will come out, but hearing dienne77 repeating non-stop how this is evidence that Al “groped” her has gone beyond a concern for sexual assault victims and now seems like someone who has an agenda.
^^and sorry, but there is no way you are going to convince me that groping a woman wearing a flack jacket is even possible. I believe you can grope a woman wearing a heavy sweater or even a heavy jacket. But not a flack jacket designed to protect the breasts from artillery fire.
Lucky for all here, I have no plans to prove to you that a woman can be groped through a flak jacket.
FLERP!,
You seem to be saying that the ONLY reason you think Franken didn’t actually grope was because of a shadow.
I think he didn’t actually grope because his “victim” was wearing a flack jacket that completely covered and protected her breast area which would make it virtually impossible for a grope to occur.
Frankly, I think my “defense” (so to speak) of Franken is stronger than yours.
If you and dienne77 believe it is possible to physically grope a woman wearing a flack jacket that covers their breasts then I’m surprised that you care about a shadow.
The thread is winding down, NYCPP. Let it go.
From Merriam Webster definition of flak jacket:
“: a jacket containing metal plates for protection against flak; broadly : a bulletproof vest — called also flak vest”
From Wikipedia:
“A flak jacket or flak vest is a form of body armor designed to provide protection from case fragments (“frag”) from high explosive weaponry, such as anti-aircraft artillery (“flak” a German contraction for “Fliegerabwehrkanone” (aircraft-defense gun)), grenades, some round shot used in shotguns and land mines and other lower-velocity projectiles. It is not designed to protect against bullets fired from small arms such as rifles or handguns. However, certain flak jackets are able to sustain certain gunshots, depending on the armor, the projectile, and the range from which the shot was fired.
The term “flak jacket” is often colloquially applied to newer body armor featuring protection against small arms projectiles, but the original usage predated the existence of functional bulletproof vests and the two are not interchangeable in performance.
Sorry, FLERP!, I posted that last comment before I saw that you want to let it go instead of continuing to argue your unwavering belief that metal plates can be groped. lol! Too bad — I’m disappointed I didn’t get to hear you make your case for metal plates that protect against shrapnel but not hands.
Problem 1)Tweeden consented to the Kiss
Problem 2) the picture clearly shows he is hovering above the breasts not touching the breasts .
Problem 3) There is a photographer and a military liaison .
Problem 4) Tweeden Kisses him 10 minutes after the agreed to rehearsal kiss that perhaps Franken did slip his tongue in. Every sexual interaction between adults is not criminal . Had he proceeded to force himself after (and if )she expressed displeasure it would have been.
Problem 5 )Tweeden is there to put on a titillating performance and clearly does so several times as pointed out in the article.
Problem 6) Here comes the slut shaming . A Hooters waitress slash playboy lingerie model would have kneed him in the groin . The bouncers at Hooters have a full time job.
Problem 7 ) She was also a Fox sports reporter the qualification for that, I will leave to your imagination (shaming over) and a guest on Hannity and a Right-wing radio co host . Point being she was an equal headliner at the USO show not an employee subordinate to Franken.
So after Casey Hunt mentions Franken in the same breath with Moore ,Trump and now Matt Lauer . She then talks about the power subordination dynamic. OOOPS there is none with Franken =Tweeden
Problem 8) She then attends a dinner 2 years later to honor Franken with another photo taken of the two of them laughing it up together . Hardly a picture of devastation that had her crying recounting the incident in the interview .
Problem 9) The night before she tells this story of devastation that left her shattered,crying 10 years later, to the general public. Roger Stone tweets out Franken’s time in the barrel OOPs
Problem 10) Franken wants an ethics hearing and is not Joel slut shaming her .
Problem 11) When 9 happened and Franken did not go on the offensive Tweeden could not make this a he said she said knock down drag out fight in public that was meant to smear him and hurt him with women .
Problem 12 ) When Franken instead asked for an ethics hearing Tweeden said don’t worry Al I’m OK , you do not have to resign . Because the last thing I want to do is testify under oath and have my phone records subpoenaed .
Problem 13 ) She is not going to the ethics committee and the Republican Chair will not issue the writ.
On to the picture in Ohio . The description is that he put his arm around my hip and and squeezed my butt . I can assure you that Mike Pence will never have that problem he will never get that close to a women to put his arm around her hip . And I assure you that Franken will never eat dinner alone with another women ever again .
But I get it, that smile ear to ear on the “victim ” was because his hand brushed her butt. If you expect me to believe that he intentionally squeezed her butt with her husband standing 5 feet away and her father there as well at a public fair . Try again.
Huffington Post has two anonymous women one of whom claims that she until recently thought it was funny . Only recently did she realize the seriousness of the incident . A multiple choice test of two . I suspect you go with your intuition that lasted 10 years . Again these are public incidents . This one so serious that the victim thought it was a joke and told friends it was funny . Now I may be conflating the part about the bathroom with the other women . But that line about “do you want me to come with you”, was clearly cynical humor. But if it were a pass what would have been inappropriate about it.
Come back to me when there is something that passes the smell test .
Come back when there is a power dynamic , like an employment situation or their is clear physical assault like the moron in the White House . Not to mention the Pedophile in Alabama . Or even the Conyors case.
Joel,
Wow, I guess we do agree on this. Although somehow you left out the flak jacket. Am I the only person who thinks that the fact she is wearing a protective, artillery-safe armor over her breasts makes the entire question of “was there or was there not a shadow?” superfluous?
You also left out the fact that Tweeden went on Fox News and claimed that Shirley Sherrod was a racist AFTER the entire hoax of the carefully edited video that “proved” her racism was revealed.
To accept as true Tweeden’s entire version of the events BEFORE an investigation is not called for given her past history. Certainly a past false accuser of other Democrats like Tweeden can be telling the truth now. But the idea that you condemn someone ONLY on the word of a known false accuser (“Shirley Sherrod is a racist”) is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with having a more complete investigation and taking exaggerated offense because one supports that and not the immediate call for Al Franken to resign is scary.
President Obama fell for this with Shirley Sherrod. He FIRED her because he was so afraid of the right wing. Let’s not be so cowardly. If Al Franken wants a full investigation, he should get one. Just like Shirley Sherrod should have had one. And Tweeden’s insistence that Sherrod was still a racist doesn’t give me a lot of faith in her but despite that, I am willing to believe her AFTER an investigation. Not on her word alone. And not on that photo that was so clearly not a man grabbing a woman’s breasts as some people claim.
NYC public school parent
The flack jacket was in my first response that I saved to a note as I ran out the door to an anti tax demonstration. I also decided that I was a little too over the top for Diane’s page .
But I will raise you one. I do not think the level of accusation rises to the level of needing an ethics investigation . As that 3 of the four accusations occurred when he was a comedian not a public official . Certainly he is not demeaning the stature of the cesspool we call the US Senate. The harm that body is about to do to the American people should be a criminal offense . Lies being told revolting.
I found the photo rather humorous . A play on the villain vs the damsel in distress. Dark humor but humor . poor taste is not criminal behavior. Nor is it behavior unbecoming a comedian.
Joel, good comment.
What the Republicans in Congress are doing to the entire country is far more opprobrious than anything Al Franken did.
The author of Diane’s linked article also wrote an article about why we can’t believe all women: because Emmett Till, a black man, was accused of whistling at a white woman. I don’t know that the author intended for these two articles to be linked, but I think the juxtaposition is rather interesting. http://strategycampsite.org/v2/index.php/2017/11/26/the-real-reason-why-we-cant-just-believe-all-women/
Why do you find it interesting? It is a very good article.
Are you too young to remember the McMartin preschool trial? No one claimed that means that children are never abused and they should never be believed.
The important issue is to be aware that not everyone tells the truth on both sides. But she made it VERY clear that the victims should never be dismissed as liars.
Excellent article. There are worlds of difference between Al Franken and the despicable Roy Moore. By the way, I highly recommend Franken’s 2017 book, Al Franken: Giant of the Senate. It is a great civics lesson packed with humor — five stars.
Franken is an employee of the people of Minnesota. As an employee of my employer, I can definitively say that if four people accused me of kissing them against their will, grabbing their butts and/or grabbing their breasts (the latter with photographic evidence), I’d be summarily canned, with no waiting around for an investigation. Why should someone as powerful as a U.S. Senator be held to lesser standards?
The analogy has some technical problems. Franken isn’t technically an employee of the people of Minnesota, and the people of Minnesota have no right to fire him. He’s an employee of the U.S. government, and I believe he can only be removed by his peers in the Senate. Also, there’s a question of the timing of the underlying events. If you were accused of doing those things prior to your employment began, do you still think you’d be summarily fired? (I confess I’m not totally up to speed on my Franken allegations, but I thought much if not all of the alleged misconduct happened before he became a Senator.)
But as far as standards go, maybe zero tolerance for on-the-job misconduct is the right approach. I do understand why liberals fear that embracing that position would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament, though.
Again with your accusations that there is “photographic evidence” that Al Franken grabbed a woman’s breasts.
There is not. But keep up the good work pushing that. Franken exually assaulted Tweeden by grabbing her breasts. You have repeated that over and over.
“I’d be summarily canned…”
If your company had a photographer who took a photo of this said assault and your company then put it on a souvenir reel to give to all the participants in this assault, you could put them out of business completely.
Do you know any companies aside from the USO who does this? I think the USO should be sued and shut down and we can stop with this nastiness in which sexual assault on stage is considered entertainment for the troops.
Agree?
What should or shouldn’t happen to the USO is irrelevant to what should or shouldn’t happen to Franken, which is the topic at hand. Your capacity for distraction is prodigious.
dienne77,
Your capacity for false outrage when it is a Democrat is pretty rich.
You are NOT a Democrat. So where do you get off giving Trump a pass (as you did during the entire run up to the election when you weren’t at all bothered by his own admission that he grabs women by the you know what as well as the sexual assault accusations of 12 women)?
Since you don’t identify at all with the Democrats, why are you suddenly demanding that every accusation against them must be believed when you spent the entire fall insisting that Trump was no worse than Hillary and the much worse sexual assault accusations against him weren’t really any reason to make you want to prevent him from winning.
That isn’t a Democrat. What you are is someone who hates Democrats so much that you will grab onto every accusation to bash them.
Perhaps you didn’t see my comment to Diane above. Democrats cannot control Republicans. If the Republicans want to be the party of gropers, that’s on them and reflects on them. It’s the difference between your own kid running around the restaurant vs. someone else’s kid. There’s not much you can do about the latter no matter how infuriating you find it, but you can – and absolutely should – do something about the former. But if you want the Democrats to be the party of gropers, I guess that’s on you. You’re right, I’m not really a Democrat. I’d just like to have someone worth voting for.
Given that you have already tried and convicted Al Franken of actual groping based on questionable evidence, I don’t think you belong in the democratic party. I think the democrats believe in the rule of law.
In my first comment I called for an investigation. So did Al Franken.
But you rush to condemn him and claim that you have all the evidence you need to know he is a serial sexual assaulter.
I will be expecting you to be here soon expressing your outrage about the liar Elizabeth Warren and demanding her resignation, too.
I realize that my expectations are undoubtedly waaaay too high for politicians, but, regardless of whether the other accusations leveled against Franken are true, is it really too much to expect that we NOT have Senators who think (or at least thought, at the the adolescent age of 55) that it is (was) funny to have their picture taken pretending to grope the breasts of a sleeping woman?
Is this really what Congress has come to?
If it is, I think we are all doomed because it not only shows a totally disrespectful mentality, but also demonstrates an utter lack of good judgement.
Exactly.
I realize my expectations are undoubtedly way to high for the military, but is it really too much to expect that we NOT have “entertainment” in which the men grab the women and the women grab the men sexually throughout the show? Looking at Robin Williams makes me realize he was a sexual predator. So was that singer. So was Bob Hope for that matter. And I think Bob Hope was much older than 55 when he make some of the most offensive sexual innuendoes that shame every woman in America.
I find it interesting that no one is criticizing why we have USO tours in which sexual assault is apparently the main part of the entertainment.
No wonder there are so many rapes in the military since the entire USO and highest ranking military officers have decided that showing sexual assault on stage is “entertainment” for the troops.
Where is the outrage?
Can a prostitute be raped? Is there a line between doing what she’s paid to do and what she’s agreed to do vs. what a john forces on her against her will? Or is it, you agreed to do it, honey, so you agreed to do it all?
Perhaps USO performers agree to certain innuendos, jokes, flirting and other activities on stage, and we can certainly have a discussion about that (for the record, I’ve always thought that kind of entertainment is quite base). But does that entitle fellow performers to kiss them backstage against their will or grab their private parts? I mean, not that I’ve ever visited one, but from my understanding, one of the biggest parts of the job of security at a “gentlemen’s club” [sic] is protecting the women and “helping” the “gentlemen” draw the line between a lap dance and inappropriate fondling.
How do you know that USO performers don’t feel pressure to agree to that public sexual assault on stage?
Do you think that the guitar player who looked so surprised when Tweeden groped him on stage expected it? Is it really okay just because it was on stage and he didn’t have a choice?
And if he doesn’t complain, does it make it okay? It’s fine to sexually assault someone as long as they don’t complain because it is expected that you will put up with it “on stage”?
Why the double standard?
Um, what?
FLERP!,
Who are you responding to?
If it is me, then I would say that the video of Tweeden surprising the singer on stage with a grope of his butt seemed entirely offensive to me. And I don’t think it is okay to use “being on stage” as an excuse to sexually assault someone.
But then, I also think it’s offensive to hear people pretending that there is “photographic evidence” of anything other than Al Franken took a stupid and offensive photo that was completely demeaning to a sleeping woman in an attempt to be funny. It wasn’t funny. But claiming that photo is evidence of him groping her breasts is intentionally misleading. It is evidence that he had the bad taste to take an offensive photo of a sleeping woman (we think) wearing a flack jacket whom he pretended to be groping. The false equivalency is pretending there is no difference.
This is getting too abstract for me.
If that guitar player accuses Tweeden of inappropriate sexual behavior I would believe him and I would want Tweeden to lose her job. Has he done so?
dienne77,
So now you are saying that it’s fine for a CEO to be inappropriate to women as long as the women don’t complain? I’m sure that’s why Harvey Weinstein believed.
Acting badly is acting badly. Tweeden didn’t complain either. Are you saying it was perfectly fine for Franken to do this if she hadn’t complained? So Franken’s actions were perfectly fine until last month when they weren’t?
Really? That’s your argument?
Like I said, my expectations for members of Congress are probably waaay too high.
I’ll have to work on lowering them.
Maybe there’s a “Senators Gone Wild” video game I can play to inure myself to this sort of behavior.
If anyone is aware of one, please let me know.
“Future Senators Gone Wild” would probably work too
Thank you, Some DAM. While there is definitely a continuum of sexual harrassment and assault, to compare pain goes down a rabbit hole that we should not go down. Now, the only way for someone to be listened to is if they had a certain line crossed?
Personally, I think that ALL of those that sexually harrass or assault should not be in Congress. That includes everyone from Roy Moore to Al Franken.
Otherwise, women (and men) won’t come forward, because they will believe that their abuse or harrassment isn’t “enough” to qualify. Do we REALLY want to say that only SOME harrassment is bad?
I’m truly disturbed that there are those on this site that are engaging in moral relativism, It’s WRONG. PERIOD.
“Personally, I think that ALL of those that sexually harrass or assault should not be in Congress”.
That’s true. But what is your definition of sexual harassment or assault.
You seem to be painting a broad brush without waiting for evidence.
Now it may turn out that evidence shows that Franken is a sexual harasser. But I’m not going to accept that a photo taken in full view of lots of people that was considered benign enough to distribute on a souvenir reel is evidence of harassment until I hear more.
Since when do we condemn someone before we know all the facts?
This accuser went on national television and insisted — AFTER knowing all the facts — that James O’Keefe’s carefully edited video of Shirley Sherrod was absolute PROOF that Shirley Sherrod was a racist. This woman had no problem lying about Shirley Sherrod even though she knew the video had been edited and the couple who were her “victims” had stood up for her.
So forgive me if I want an investigation instead of just taking her word for it that she is not lying to attack a democrat just like she lied to attack Shirley Sherrod.
Okay?
Except that there IS proof. Treating a woman as an object to be grabbed is harrassment, and it can be very damaging. Take it from someone who was never touched, but horribly sexually harrassed by my first principal–the scars linger, even if there is no touching.
“…..Take it from someone who was never touched, but horribly sexually harrassed by my first principal–…”
Your principal was your BOSS. You and your principal were in a power relationship in which he had the power.
Do you really think that if you had been the one who asked your principal to go out to dinner that it is the same as if your principal does the same to you? Your principal can say no to you without losing his job. But can you say no to the principal without losing your job?
According to some of the faux outraged people here, there is no difference between you asking your principal to dinner and your principal asking you to dinner. But there IS. And pointing out that truth is important. Unless you just want to believe the propaganda that it’s all harassment.
Power. Who has the power and who doesn’t is part of defining harassment. It’s why the guy you are talking to at a party who makes a pass is not immediately sued for sexual harassment. He may be a jerk who makes a pass, but that’s what he is. And no lawyer would take your case to get him fired from his job because he made a pass at a woman he just met at a party after he talked to her for a while.
We seem to have lost all reason in this debate. Just like Bannon and company wanted. Truly sad.
Thanks for this. Posted it!
This entire conversation seems to have gotten off point. The author of the op-Ed that Diane posted made the point that the conservative accused are often not held accountable in investigation but are re-elected (in Trump’s case he was elected for the first time in the face of sketchy behavior). I am not about to argue this point, but I can easily see her outrage as the victim of an actual sexual assault that was violent and physically damaging. She suggested that to suggest an equivalency to what used to be termed a “pass” was outlandish. Even if you feel, as I do, that formerly accepted behavior like this should not be accepted, and that real gentlemen did not act this way, you must agree that the two behaviors are not the same.
The problem is that we cannot solve this with a he said she said contest. I am not sure what the solution is, but we are being distracted from a congress that is about to award huge tax breaks to a class of people who already have benefited out of proportion to their societal effort. When will all this diversion end?
Quite true.
Roy,
So right. I should not have posted this, as it distracts from the outrageous tax bill, whose benefits will be conferred on the 1% and corporations. We all feel powerless as we watch a gutless Republican majority steam roll this bull dedpite its unpopularity—no hearings. A race to pass it without waiting to learn the damage it will do.
Yes you should have posted it. Because the tax cut is too depressing and the charges against Franken to date are humorous. But only when a Fascist is elected President and Christofascist is Vice President , could we have the level of charges lodged against Franken be taken seriously by anyone but dienne .
As for the Tax bill, the worst part is that Democrats will never have the conviction to reverse them. Sure they will claw back on the fringes when they come to power next , but that is about all. As Mathews said last night where is the democratic opposition.
A tax cut being pushed by the Business RoundTable .A cut whose bennifits are going to their CEO members and the major investors in their corporations. Not a soul in sight of Wall Street with a protest sign . Standing on Main street in Huntington at 6P.M. was a waste of time. The one of two demonstrations in metro NY, that I knew of.
My bet, the house will just rubber stamp the Senate bill to avoid sending it back to the senate for approval.
I never would suggest you should not have posted anything. It is your house, and you can serve anything you want
“The problem is that we cannot solve this with a he said she said contest. ”
We have no idea whether it is a “he said she said” or if there is corroborating evidence. Al Franken called for an investigation. When I said that was a good idea, I got Democrat-haters who claimed he should just resign.
It is not off point to say that if we allow the Republicans to make their reprehensible behavior acceptable because we simply go along with their accusations instead of trying to shed light on them, then we just play along with them. And they will continue to push tax breaks and get away with it.
We now have Trump calling Elizabeth Warren a liar because of the Native American thing. Now, we Dems can fall on our swords as we usually do and say “oh yes, she is a big fat liar but not as big of a liar as Trump” and we lose.
We need to shed light so that instead of the media repeating “Elizabeth Warren, who did lie about her ethnicity….” is changed to: “Elizabeth Warren, who the right wing lied about just like they lied about Obama being a Kenyan….”
Dems have lost too many elections because voters believed the lies.
I do not think this is a competition to see who had the worst trauma.
Nor should it EVER be. The moral relativism of some on this site is truly alarming to me.
Since when is asking for an investigation “moral relativism”? Seems like you are the one who is the moral relativist.
Do you know what else is moral relativism? When Al Franken’s victim when on Fox News to insist that Shirley Sherrod was a racist and the white couple were her “victims”. It didn’t matter that Al Franken’s victim knew that the video she was claiming was proof had been edited. It didn’t matter whether the supposedly victims had come forward to explain that Shirley Sherrod had actually helped them. It didn’t matter that when the FULL story came out, it was proven beyond a doubt that the entire “Shirley Sherrod needs to be fired for her anti-white behavior to ruin 2 nice white people” was a right wing hoax.
So spare me your pretense that this person suffered great trauma. Maybe she suffered and maybe she was in on the joke. Do you know who suffered real trauma? Shirley Sherrod who was fired from her job thanks to the Democrats like you and President Obama who jumped on the band wagon to insist she be fired and acted as if asking for a full investigation was somehow “condoning racism”. Fire her! And she got fired. With the help of people like Al Franken’s victim mischaracterizing what Shirley Sherrod really had done.
So spare me your insistence that if I don’t accept her characterization of what Al Franken did without a full investigation, I am guilty of “moral relativism”. If anyone is guilty of that, it is you.
Wow. The moral relativism is in the article. “She wasn’t touched, so she isn’t a victim,” and I’ve been seeing it on here, too.
I am a registered Democrat, but I DO wonder–would all of you be so lenient of Al Franken if he was a Republican?
Since when is calling for an investigation to hear the true facts “moral relativism”?
Since the left decided they hated democracy so much that they were going to jump on the bandwagon to round up and imprison every democrat who is accused.
Threatened Out West, if you cannot understand the difference between a STAGED joke photo which was considered so benign that it was included as a SOUVENIR reel and real sexual assault with real victims, then you are the one who is guilty of moral relativism.
I find it ironic when people excuse their own idols like Bernie Sanders for all kinds of behavior that COULD be considered corrupt and criminal if someone was going to use propaganda against him and then attack Democrats for the “crime” of asking for a investigation before we assume that people are guilty.
SHIRLEY SHERROD. Obama got made a fool of by listening to people like you who kept insisting she must be summarily fired and having an investigation was an evil thing that only the evil “moral relativists” would ask for.
“The photo is a form of mental abuse.”
Seriously, anyone who could say such a thing without having all the facts has jumped the shark.
Once again an issue affecting the present and future social, economic, political and emotional lives of women has been turned into a battle between two male dominated institutions, the Republican and Democratic Parties. I hope that it won’t end with the victory of the STATUS QUO for WOMEN. The
women must keep the argument about WOMEN and women’s rights and status, Diane has made it
clear and possible now that she has clarified and focused on who this is about. This time it’s not
about THEM. It’s about US. WOMEN CAN’T LET THAT BE COOPTED!
If ALL the females told their stories about sexual misconduct, we would be surprised.
When I was a boy, my mother was young and single and conventionally attractive, in all the ways that conventional physical attractiveness took in the 1960s. Because she was young and adventurous, we lived an interesting life. I tell people that she and I grew up together. Because of her perceived physical attractiveness and the disgusting, hypocritical sexual mores of the time, she was frequently, continually harassed by men, and this harassment ran the gauntlet from what might be construed as playfulness and innuendo to actions that clearly meet the legal definition of rape. I saw this crap a lot when I was very young and have carried my anger about it throughout my life. Being subject to harassment was a way of life for her and for women, generally, of the time. Clearly, that past is not behind us, and we still have learning to do. We’ve opened the wound, and it’s a lot worse than we thought. So what do we do about it?
Sometimes cultures evolve slowly. At other times there are seismic shifts. Perhaps, when all is said and done, something beautiful will emerge from all of this–an understanding on the part of everyone of what consent actually means. I am glad that some of those being accused are willing to take what they have coming to them, to say, I acted terribly, childishly, and am ashamed of how I behaved. To those people, I am willing to say, we are all works in progress, and some of us take that quotidian construction of the ego-self seriously in hand.
Bob: I would add a second hand story to support your mother’s experience, although I hasten to add that I take her story at face value. I had a friend many years ago (1980 or so) who worked in industry. She told me once that there were places you did not go in her office if you did not want to be groped. You learned to avoid going into the file room to get a file when certain guys were able to see you go in there.
If it takes embarrassing a generation to change this, so much the better.
Well said as usual, Roy. Thank you.
When I was dating my future husband I was warned to stay away from “Uncle Tony” – no explanation was necessary.
Two more groping/thrusting tongue allegations have surfaced today. I’m sure that more will follow.
The Democratic Party has blown an excellent opportunity to walk the talk. Neither pedophiles or serial gropers/tongue thrusters should be in office.
I agree. Time to remove every male politician who has groped or otherwise committed a sexual assault. Time to try an all-female Congress.
Oh yes. Men have screwed up our politics for far too long. I don’t think that our gender, generally, is very good at this. Equality is not identity. Women have particular strengths that would serve us very, very well indeed.
If there is one thing that is true about the Democratic Party, it is that it never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
“Tongue thrusters”??
Tim, you are truly an odd duck.
There is something disgusting about the left’s willingness to play the fool for the right wing fascists.
We saw this with Shirley Sherrod! Burn her! They screamed. No need to wait for an investigation! She must be sacrificed to prove we really stand up for our principles opposing ALL racists even if they are African American!
We saw the video! And look, here is Leeann Tweeden appearing on Fox to tell us the true facts about how racist Shirley Sherrod is. We MUST believe Tweeden that Sherrod is a racist BEFORE an investigation.
When calling for a real investigation instead of relying on the word of the woman who told us Shirley Sherrod is a racist is not the response of the left, fascism is right around the corner.
Sad times.
How many females who read this blog have been sexually accosted or flashed sometime during their lives.
Zephyr Teachout in a NYT opinion piece:
I’m Not Convinced Franken Should Quit