I wish there were any hope that I might wake up one morning and discover that Stupid has been vanquished from the Earth.
Some, such as Julia Cooper, 75, a semiretired nurse from Montgomery, said they were continuing to support [Roy] Moore because of the spiritual battle he was waging. She said that when she was a high school student in Camden, Ala., a man in his 20s or 30s came to her house to date her but she resisted his requests. “Even at the age of 14, you could have walked away,” she said of the accusers. “If you want to get out, you can get out.”
I know that that fine morning will never come, but the Stupid doesn’t have to be this prevalent and pronounced and politically ascendant.
Hmmm
For Roy Moore, a Long History of Combat and Controversy
The Republicans and their loyal supporters have officially decreed that they will vote for literally anyone but a Democrat. They are God’s greatest hypocrites and will twist every Scripture to fit their rationalizations. They elected a president who cannot quote a single verse from the Bible and goes against virtually every one of the Ten Commandments.
They support Nazis, they support rapists, and they support pedophiles. Let’s hear it for the Religious Right.
I’ll vote for literally anyone but a Republican. I’d vote enthusiastically for Franken over any Republican. I’d vote for Grayson (and even Murphy), I’d vote for Menendez, for Manchin, for John Edwards. I don’t blame Republicans who are capable of distinguishing between moral shitbaggery and public policymaking.
I hate everything they’re trying to accomplish, but at least they want to win. We just want to be praised for how good we are.
. . . your last line.
I want to win, but not (as I’ve said here repeatedly) a Pyrrhic “victory” that comes at the cost of becoming them to defeat them.
Wanting and trying to win is not mutually exclusive with basic decency. Nor is actually winning.
Or if I’m wrong and they are mutually exclusive, then we’re fucked beyond how fucked I already think we are, and all our collective “analysis” and handwringing and strategizing and pep talks here are beyond pointless wastes of time, effort, pixels and electrons.
I’d wager that we have different definitions of ‘basic decency.’ I don’t want to become assholes like them. I want to become assholes like us.
Is ‘winning’ mutually exclusive with ‘politeness?’ Right now, politeness = compromise = bipartisanship = conservatism. We need to break that cycle.
. . . “politeness”, Miz Scarlett.
That’s why I asked! Would you like to see more impoliteness among Dems?
It’s appalling what he did (and admitted).
I think he and Dems are getting the response pretty right, though.
Franken hizzownself calling for an ethics investigation of hizzownself, for example. My Senator forwarding a campaign donation from Franken to a sex-abuse-prevention non-profit. Etc.
Has any of that been “impolite”? Ymmv.
(Compare and contrast both the crime and the response with the Roy Moore case.)
But if the question amounts to “should Dems confront and condemn clear wrongdoing by other Dems?”, then obviously, of course, decency requires it.
Those are all examples of politeness, not the opposite! They’re all utterly decent. Indecent would be, devoting all of this media attention to repeatedly, endlessly, robotically pointing out that Donald Trump, like Roy Moore is an accused pedophile, and that he repeatedly partied with a convicted child molester.
It’s all the opposite of sense to me.
Part of that may be in the imprecision of “politeness”, making it seem un-useful to me since you introduced it into this exchange.
But your assertion re: what’s indecent just looks nuts from where I sit. Also too, incoherent with what you’d written to this point.
Here’s just the first I managed to google up of those previous occasions when I’ve made the same point, in which “basic decency” is defined, though in the negative, i.e., by what it cannot include:
It will be quite disappointing/disturbing to see you actually propose that we should be engaging in the listed behaviors (though not an exhaustive list by any means) because we want that badly to win.
At that point, that would mean we would do anything no matter how “indecent” (i.e., dishonest, morally/ethically wrong, reprehensible, evil, etc.), to “win”, i.e., to seize and hold power.
At which point we will have become those we seek to defeat.
(Alas, this will probably provide the cue for ag or some idiotic fellow-traveling whataboutist both-sider to make the ridiculous claim that that’s already the case, not a dime’s worth of difference, blah, blah, blah. Oh, well, can’t be helped.)
(And no, there’s no chance that our noble intentions of all the good we’re motivated to do for everyone could survive that debasement to still come to fruition. It just doesn’t work that way. Never has. If we allowed ourselves to be degraded to that extent in order to gain power, that corruption will preclude our exercising that power to accomplish the ends we told ourselves justified adopting those corrupt means. Note that none of this conflicts with fighting the most robust fight that we can possibly muster absent such corruption. “Politeness” got nuthin’ to do with it.)
We don’t need to do all of that. I mean, I’d love to see us level the playing field in terms of voter suppression, and if we can’t do it by increasing access of our own voters, I’ll take what we can get.
And if ‘reality denial’ means ‘stop negotiating with ourselves to prove how Serious we are’ and ‘start making huge, implausible asks in order to establish our principles and rally the troops and shift the window’ then my god do I think we need reality denial. The Republicans, faced with the impossibility of ending Obamacare, tried again, and again, and again and again and again and again. They’re trying again now. They didn’t say, ‘Oh, we don’t have the votes, let’s move on.’ Maybe it won’t work out for them. I’m betting that it won’t. But they’ve spent years turning a 0% chance of repealing Obamacare into a 10% chance.
How do you feel about the scorched-earth politics of character assassination grounded in truth and half-truth?
Using the same tools doesn’t always make for moral equivalence. A German soldier using a rifle to kill a British soldier was a villain; a British soldier using the same rifle to kill a German soldier was a hero. Our actions matter but so do the banners beneath which we fight. The firebombing of Dresden was horrific; it didn’t make us Nazis.
. . . Golden Rule is still as good as it gets for a moral guide: if you’d be outraged by them doing it to you, then don’t do it.
That doesn’t mean (to use the imperfect boxing analogy) that you don’t train and prepare as hard as you possibly can and then hit with all the force and precision and stamina you can muster when in the ring . . . just not below the belt. (Again, this is why “politeness” struck me as such an odd insertion into the discussion . . . as though I’d suggested any such thing.)
We know different versions of the ‘Golden Rule!’
What amazes me most is that I, random dude on a blog, am apparently more ethically corrupt than the vast majority of Democratic political operatives. Where are all our moral monsters?
. . . a paraphrase, but I’ll make the claim it captures the essence very accurately.
So how does your version go?
The rest assumes facts not in evidence:
Taking that ironically, i.e., you’re implying “the vast majority of Democratic political operatives” are “corrupt” (or “indecent”) as I defined it (whether you, personally, are actually more or less so is of relatively trivial import) . . . you’ve presented no evidence to support that. It looks supported only by the cynical assumption, absent evidence, that “of course it must be so, duh!”
And of course the appropriate benchmark here is “relative to the pervasive corruption/indecency that’s endemic in and defining of Rightwingnuttia.” Proportionality matters.
Obviously, individual Dems/Dem “operatives” are sometimes corrupt/indecent as I’ve defined those terms. Equally obviously, my argument has consistently been about what should be, what we should do . . . and not do. I’ve never claimed no Dem has ever fallen short of that standard. That would be idiotic. But we should consistently aspire to such a standard and not propose violation of it.
Again, we should not become them trying to achieve the thus empty and hollow “victory” of defeating them.
It’s quite the eye-opener to me that this would even be considered controversial among people I would(/might) ally myself with politically.
“Those who have the gold make the rules.”
And no, I wasn’t being ironic. I’m honestly amazed that the vast majority of Democratic political operatives seem to have far more scruples than I do.
We are so virtue signaling.
Or norm rehearsing, depending on its effect.
The ” Dungeons and Dragons” language always gets me.
“Spiritual battle”. Fucking rubes.
Yeah, that language leaped out to me as well.
The chief battle Roy Moore and his supporters are waging is their battle to maintain massive, blot-out-the-sun levels of moral relativism, ignorance and hypocrisy. They’re waging that battle quite vigorously and with an unfortunate level of success.
Forget about it, booman. It’s Alabama.
With (halfhearted) apologies to the devout who may frequent this blog: this is the entire point of “sin”: it’s pure relativism and always has been despite the scary absolutist “moral” frameworks and the hellfire and brimstone.
A godless heathen, we’re told, can’t have any morality because there’s no fear of eternal reprisal. But a godless heathen is actually thinking about morality in the abstract — don’t do wrong because it’s wrong, full stop, not because of what will be done to you (here or in the afterlife) — so the goalposts are fixed and can’t be moved. A devout Christian, on the other hand, has recourse to confession to a priest and penance (meaning, the ultimate “judge” isn’t God but another person) so the switch can always get flipped so that the moral transgression goes away…in fact you’re better off because you’re “struggling” heroically with your sinning nature (which we all have).
The entire construction (We’re all sinners from birth who, by apologizing the right way, can be forgiven, no matter how badly we acted or how long the apology took) is pretty much designed to ensure that 1) anyone can get away with anything; 2) a powerful central group arbitrarily decides who gets away with what (based on tribal allegiance and tribute); 3) all judgments are arbitrary. But that what happens when you try run the world with a Medieval system.
David Corn has a tweet noting a sign at a Moore rally “Taking a stand for God”. What???
Plato was on to this before the common era:
Do the gods love that which is good because it is good?
Or is it good because it is beloved by the gods?
If the first, goodness is independent of religion.
If the second, it’s independent of ethics and amounts to simply following the orders of religious superiors.
This is why many of we “devout” press for a separation of church and state; there are so many conceptions and misconceptions about what the wide diversity of religions that are practiced in this country consist of, that it is better to simply ignore them all when making up the rules for everyone to adhere to.
As far as I know, we don’t yet have any group that decrees, like the tribe whose belief system, as explained by my long-ago anthropology instructor, concluded that it is moral and good to murder your enemy.
Other than that, we have everything from snake handlers (a local custom where I grew up) to main line churches (where I now worship) that do their best to give sanctuary to the persecuted, feed and clothe the poor, and succor the addicted.
Trying to make rules or policy that is in any way inclusive of all those beliefs is an exercise in futility and should probably not be attempted.
But it doesn’t work, because the Law of God is supposed to trump the laws of people (“Man”) and for so many religious evangelism is built into the central concept: you’re supposed to impose your beliefs on others (hence the Crusades etc.) This whole “I respect your religious beliefs” idea is a 20th Century convention invented so as to curtail centuries of religious war…and, obviously, it’s barely working.
What I’m saying is, Roy Moore says he follows the Bible rather than the Constitution, which he’s essentially free to do as long as he doesn’t mind being thrown out of the American Judicial system (which happened, I think, three times). And, of course, the people of Alabama can elect whomever they want, so if they choose to overlook his lawlessness or idiocy or hypocrisy (not to mention his literally being a child molester) that’s their business too…but it’s my business as an American citizen to excoriate them for doing this.
The point is, we can say they’re tacitly putting the Bible over politics, but what they’re really doing is exactly the opposite; they’re putting politics (worldly affairs) over the Bible (sin), and, I’m saying, this is why the “faith vs. human law” debate is broken — because it’s never actually about faith; it’s about selective, convenient sophistry chosen to advance whatever worldly agenda the religious citizens in question care about.
So they get all the self-serving benefits of arbitrary morality and all the holier-than-thou benefits of “spiritual battle” martyrdom. The “sin” relativism I’m discussing above is just icing on the cake; it greases the wheel in the spots where the wheel gets stuck on basic immorality (like, say, child molestation, which apparently doesn’t count against you if you’re “struggling” sufficiently against the idea of sin, or just say you are).
So whether you officially exclude faith from secular affairs or not, the moment you agree to “respect” all faiths you’re giving any citizen the rhetorical tools necessary to take any politically-expedient position they want, immoral or not, illegal or not, and not only embrace it enthusiastically but hide behind the socially-bulletproof defense of “this is my faith” (because that ‘s what it happens to be today; once we’re discussing Obama rather than Trump, for example, “family values” become relevant again).
There’s no compromise that can be reached that allows society to function right until we stop “respecting” people’s “faith” no matter how ridiculously evil they’re being in its name.
The most egregious example is when the Supreme Court says gay marriage is equal before the law, but the Roy Moore types say, no, God disagrees (the Bible says so, they argue) so those laws don’t have to be enforced — and county clerks forced to issue gay marriage licenses or bakers asked to make cakes for gay marriages are entitled to refuse because their religious liberty is threatened. (But if Roy Moore wants to court 14 year old girls, well, that’s Biblical.)
It’s overtly chaotic and overtly unethical and immoral; it’s the worst of bad repressive politics combined with the worst of bad repressive religion without the logic or consistency (meager though they may be) of either. 21st Century retrograde bigotry and self-interest defended with selectively applied Medieval/pre-common-era dogma. There’s no way to make it work.
The whole premise of religion, since the moment that man invented it, has been to control the lives and behavior of other people. The reality is, those who are most devout to the literal words of their holy books are those who are the most radical. The whole idea of “respect” and “inclusiveness” is, at its core, anathema to religion. Religion, as has been pointed out time and again,poisons everything. It is like a virus. In the end, all of the charity and benevolence that often also comes along with religion, is inevitably crushed by the heavy hand of authoritarianism and fundamentalism that is a part of every religion man has ever dreamed up. Unquestioning allegiance and loyalty to the chosen leader is at the core of all of it. Is it any wonder that evangelicals flocked to the likes of the greatest authoritarian to arrive on the political scene in a hundred years, or more?
Biblical literalism is a fraud. As you’ll see every time you see a so-called fundamentalist talking about how the bible forbids homosexuality while wearing polyester.
Comprehensive! What you describe is attempting to exercise power rather than spiritual curiosity and growth which should be the goal of any religious person.
Since I’m also from Ohio, and the southern part at that, I understand your frustration. We ain’t all like that, as you probably know but maybe have forgotten right now.
Social control is kind of inevitable in complex societies. Abrahamic religions have been particularly good in that for ages. Their origin is nothing but a cultural war like today, according to Graeber (pg 182-183):
I can only reiterate my first and last paragraphs; which seems to me to be exactly what you’ve concluded.
Agreed. Apologies for not quite working hard enough to line up our points.
In one of the Ishmael “trilogy” (I believe The Story of B lays this out in greatest detail iirc), one indicator that our conquering “Taker” culture now dominates the entire planet is that a “preacher” anywhere can go up to a stranger and say “Let me tell you how to be saved” and s/he will be understood.
Not necessarily believed (i.e., that the preacher actually knows what it takes for one to be saved). Not necessarily win a convert. But understood. Everyone’s already familiar with the concept of universal, original sin, such that any random person could assume that any other random person would get what you meant if you offered to tell them how to be saved.
That’s how thoroughly our pervasive “Mother Culture” and her salvationist religions have taught us that we are all “sinners in the hands of an angry god” in desperate need of salvation.
(This has not always and everywhere been so, though it feels so to us from inside our world-dominant Taker culture. It was not so among so-called “primitive” cultures whom missionaries struggled to first teach the concept of “sin” and that the indigenous cultures were “sinners” before they could be converted. And it is still not so in the tiny pockets of remnant “Leaver” cultures that we have so far not managed to obliterate (or not bothered to because they weren’t in the way of obtaining something we wanted).
Well, if the hypocrite Goopers in Allybama decide being God-fearin’ is all you need, in addition to an “R” next to your name, then the Goopers in the senate will then own him and I don’t think that will sit well with some. 18 or so Rs would be needed to expel.
But last I heard, Jones holds a slight lead. I hope he’s publicly pressing the matter against the creep. Much as they might be tempted, now is not the time for Dems to go for the politeness points.
And it doesn’t help the situation that Al Franken went and did something truly stupid. He might need to be censured at a minimum so Dems can be free to make the case against the teen-stalker. I hope Franken’s was just a one-off case of temporary jet-lag stupidity. It was only marginally funny then, and only to adolescent boys. If more cases come forward, he’s probably done.
Just some contextual questions about our rapidly changing acceptable norms.
What are the traditional acceptable values for a USO show?
What is permissable and impermissable actions with military-issued body armor?
What likely will testimony about activities in rehearsal and on the helicopter show to be the facts of the case?
Did Roger Stone tweet an accusation against Franken before the release of the allegation? How did he get that information ahead of time if he did?
Is the accuser building a morning radio reputation as a libtard puncher or is the timing coincidental?
Can Democrats aggressively now push for zero tolerance for misogyny and harassment and assault and make it stick against Republicans because they’ve cleaned their own house? Or will Democrats continue to be the only ones to lose politicians from these purges through own goals?
Who were those Congressional employees who got covered with $15 million in payments? At this point this, is not a matter of privacy.
Some comments below, but first some context from my own perspective: I fondly recall viewing in real time his early SNL appearances. I was a major backer of Franken for his first senate run, including financial. Less enthusiastic, but still supportive, for his second run. I appreciated how in the last year or two he’s become more assertive as a senator. Still wish he would wise up and become a true progressive leader about reining in US foreign policy.
The controversy: It was not about standards re USO shows (undoubtedly, troops want edgy material) but about Al’s behavior off-stage with his fellow actor. Of the two incidents, the kissing was creepy and unnecessary (especially as it was aggressively undertaken in rehearsal) but doesn’t rise to the level of felony.
The second incident, post-show(?) on the plane and not a part of the skit or rehearsal, was more serious as it involved a fellow actor who was sleeping and could not give consent to being groped (though the photo shows only up to the moment of apparently about to be groped). It helps him only slightly, if any, that she was wearing the heavy vest, and thus Franken would have been groping through some bulky clothing.
As to the actual facts, Franken seems to admit the second incident of groping, and now regrets it, but has a different memory of the kissing weirdness, at least as I recall his press release.
There’s definitely a good point to be made that mores and attitudes change over the years (see, e.g., movie The Philadelphia Story for pinching women’s butts as SOP for some men, womanizing as normal and even healthy for married men, and one scene, intended to elicit laughter, involving Cary Grant nearly socking his about to be ex in the face; also see Hitchcock’s 1963 The Birds, where Tippi Hedren is wolf-whistled, to her obvious delight and amusement, in the opening scene — I do not think AH misrepresented the culture of that time or later), but I’m not sure that fact bails him out much here.
As for the accuser, to her credit she accepted his apology. Though she added she hopes there aren’t more women to come forward with stories. So do I. Couldn’t tell you about any hidden motive as I’m not familiar with current AM radio drive-time, though her station (last I checked about 20 yrs ago) has a long history of lefty-bashing conservative management and hosts.
The so-called groping is a prank photo. he admitted to the prank photo and that it was a mistake [and btw at the ethics investigation we can expect they’ll track down who took the picture and the other guy in the picture]. She. Tweeden, seems to be getting cold feet re: her accusation. perhaps because she’ll have to testify under oath to the ethics committee. Also, Franken stated he had a different recollection of the rehearsal than she did, nevertheless thoroughly apologized. His apology and insistence [I hope] on ethics investigation sets up ongoing comparison between Franken and Trump, not at all the outcome the Rs desired. There was also a twitter accusation against Blumenthal, but the accuser turned out to be a fake person, i.e. someone took someone else’s info. in my reading, an R attempt to muddy the waters via accusations vs. dems is completely backfiring. the 24 hr news cycle will be comparing T and Moore with Franken for the next couple weeks. today, they were even replaying the Anita Hill hearings.
Not sure what to understand by “prank photo”. Meaning Franken is looking for a sophomoric laugh by groping her — honk honk? Or meaning he is just pretending to grope, but didn’t actually touch? The accuser alleges he actually groped her while she slept. (pic I’ve seen is ambiguous — seems to show slight initial touching on one breast, not the other).
Did Franken say it was all just a “prank” in his apologies? If so, I missed that. He did admit it was a stupid thing to do and, in hindsight, not at all funny. Some Qs here he could possibly clarify well before an ethics investigation if only he would step up and explain publicly.
My understanding is that it is a prank photo, he’s not actually touching her, and at one point she said she didn’t know about it until he [? someone?] showed it to her when she woke up, even some weeks after perhaps. That was the story the first day. so he would be apologizing for joking about groping her, but may not have groped her. this we will find out when the photog talks or the other guy. the incident where she says he kissed her was rehearsal for a skit which he wrote that he “remembers it differently”. In her version, he insisted on rehearsing the kiss [backstage I believe, no one else around] and he forcibly kissed her. Because he apologized, everyone assumes he groped her and forcibly kissed her. no one says ‘allegedly’ to either the groping or kissing and he’s focused on his apology and the fact that “he remembers the rehearsal differently” and the groping pic was a hurtful and bad idea. I don’t have an opinion about the kiss. waiting to hear more info.
Well, if Franken didn’t actually touch her, wouldn’t that have been an important point to note prominently in his two apologies? “It was a stupid prank, and I now deeply regret thinking this would be something funny, but I want it to be very clear that I never actually touched her breasts.”
Actually, I don’t think that would be a good idea. I think Franken’s response was exactly the right way to approach it.
Let the investigation examine whether it was a prank photo, witness testimony about the circumstances under which the photo was taken, and the relevance of the fact that everyone was wearing body armor. And any coordination that Tweeden made with Republican operatives.
Let the investigation examine all the allegations.
As long as Dayton is still governor, Franken can still resign if need be. Dayton can appoint Keith Ellison to the Senate. Franken can run to succeed Dayton.
Ellison as his replacement, possibly. A badly tarnished Franken to then bring his diminished status to a run for governor? Makes no sense.
If Franken is forced to resign from the senate, or is expelled (less likely), he’s done as a pol
Huh? Seems to me that clarifying that it was only a pretend grope and not the real thing means the difference between innocent sophomoric behavior and criminal conduct. If Franken is suggesting no contact, that is clearly a crucial point to get out there immediately and not wait for a much later investigation, lest the wrong perception linger that he crossed the legal line.
This is such an obvious and crucial counter point to make that it makes me wonder why Franken hasn’t used it so far. And the implications of that are not good.
No, it turns it into a he-said she-said pissing match with no solid evidence one way or the other when it’s clear the picture itself is inappropriate, alienating lots of people who might otherwise be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt or wait for the facts to come in.
The correct way to proceed is to apologize for the sophomoric picture and request a formal ethics investigation, thus damping down the circus and returning focus to that Roy Moore asshole, who is helpfully responding to his problems by repeatedly stepping on his own dick.
Just my humble simple country boy advice: better for Franken to have uncertainty as to a grope than have the far worse current situation hanging out there, a pic that appears to show actual groping (particularly his right hand) and an apology which seems to imply the groping occurred.
Of course, we haven’t heard from the photographer yet, who might have relevant information to clarify.
Meanwhile, a second woman accuser has come forward on a butt-grabbing incident 7 yrs ago during a photo op.
I hope I don’t have to start referring to Al as “Uncle Willie,” or worse, “disgraced former senator” …
I disagree. wait for the investigation. keeping the story out there keeps the pressure on T and Roy Moore. some have mentioned, Marie3 iirc, that T has been involved with underaged women i.e. girls and that’s what’s on the tape of him. Tim Hogan asked what did Roy Moore do after he got married? that kind of behavior doesn’t stop of it’s own accord
correction: T is rumored to have been involved with underaged girls
. . . he actually groped her while she slept.”
(“While she slept”? Then how does she know? Haven’t seen that reported and doesn’t ring true.)
Got link?
Obvious Q that occurred to me, but as yet I haven’t seen it addressed either in her media appearances (well, The View) or by Franken in any of his press releases.
(I say she alleges actual grope because that’s how all the media reports the allegation, and Dem pols seem to be strongly reacting as if this wasn’t just a pretend grope short of an actual grope).
I believe she’s also stated that when she saw the photo (initial story was that it was later sent to her in a disc packet of trip pix) she “felt violated all over again.” But as I recall, she had previously indicated or implied that she didn’t learn of the (attempted?) groping until she received the pic.
It would seem like an important point that both sides, especially the accuser, need to clear up.
Here’s one story on it from The Atlantic.
Also somewhat unclear: is she referring to somehow knowing about the alleged grope when she says she felt violated again, or was this referencing the kiss.
she said she didn’t find out until they showed her a photo
. . . “The accuser alleges” what you claim she alleges.
That’s what I’m requesting evidence for (else retraction!).
There are pictures of the same girl who is accusing Franken of misconduct, grabbing a guys ass at the same event. Really difficult for me to get worked up over a joke picture of a guy pretending to touch a girl’s chest, while she’s wearing a friggin bullet proof vest, when there are ACTUAL pictures of the accusser groping guys asses. The whole thing seems utterly ridiculous.
Saw that too. If true, a valid un-retouched un-Photoshopped pic, and if it can be shown (testimony from the pinched performer) that it happened as depicted, clearly the strength of her story diminishes. Several “ifs” there, and a Q as to why that performer hasn’t spoken up yet.
Google “Leeann grope musician video” and the first hit is to a YouTube clip of her grinding her hip into the guy; he pushes her off with a hand on her hip and she returns the favor by grabbing his butt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJidGI-NMd0
Again, if that is a legit video (as it appears to be) and not doctored, then it would tend to somewhat diminish her story’s strength in the COPO, but if she and fellow performer state that the naughty particulars of their performance were agreed upon in advance, it’s done with mutual consent for the entertainment benefit of the audience, and the alleged unconsented to groping by Franken problem would still stand.
yes, investigation necessary and subsequent more information
Elsewhere on the Internet I’ve seen footage surfaced of Leeann on the USO tour grabbing the buttocks of a musician onstage next to her, also claims by the escort assigned to Franken that he was with the comedian all the time and did not see what she’s claiming. So who knows how this will all play out under oath.
I think she’s worried about being under oath and backtracking
I wouldn’t take those movies as depicting the times so much as depicting the depiction of women in the Hollywood studio system. i.e. making movies that encourage the audience to laugh at that treatment of women.
Women’s Lib didn’t start until ca 1970. Then obviously it took a while for men’s attitudes to change and for women to stop accepting as normal what previously passed as boys will be boys harmlessness.
I would imagine, and partly remember, that depictions of women didn’t just come from Hollywood reflecting merely the studio system. It was in the culture completely — ads, tv, entertainers, etc. iirc, wife-beating jokes were still a common staple among professional comedians well into the 60s.
On Roger Stone, there’s this:
So the timing wasn’t just random, nor was the proportionality difference unintentional.
It’s difficult for many of us not reared in the South to understand how these people think. What is more defiant than declaring war on your own government? For them, defiance comes more easy. However, losing the most definitive war for Americans has to be unsettling because Americans are winners, not losers. Southern politicians like Roy Moore know this is their Trump card, so if they win, Alabamians win another battle. Of course, these people are worse off after the election, but they won, by God. Hopefully in time memories will fade and the younger generations will concentrate on “bread and butter” issues.
Memories fading in the south? They have never stopped fighting the civil war and they are not going to stop now.
Removing Confederate monuments and symbols helps discourage the “Lost Cause.” In 2010 the University of Mississippi’s mascot Colonel Reb was replaced by the Black Bear. It’s a start, anyway.
I think it’s a real gap in my education. My family came to the US in the early 20th Century, and I’ve only spent a few months south of DC. The Civil War feels ancient and remote to me, but I suspect Foote is right. Thanks for that.
Was it not merely a loss but (for the pro-Confederate south) more like an occupation, even post-Reconstruction?
Yeah. I’m embarrassed to admit that, despite everything, that never really occurred to me before. I feel like I’m 30 years late to the epiphany.
gobsmacking thing to realize and accept as current Reality.
Do the French constantly try to upbraid Austria within the EU?
Current report is that Jones has the opinion polls by 0.2%.
And there is this:
Birmingham Young Republicans withdraw Moore support
There is a question of how possible it might be to push Jones over the line with turnout. Past history speaks toward near miss.
The demographics in play are millennials and younger women and possibly assault survivors who have been awakened by the reaction against Weinstein. They will be looking there for how it turns out instead of Roy Moore. Because Roy Moore is wired through the GOP churches.
And it will require “believe and it will happen turnout over the entire Democratic base in Alabama plus Republicans for Jones turning out in numbers. Many will be called but few will answer.
The final factor will be those GOP voters who sit out because (1) it’s a special election; (2) the ick factor of pedophilia attached to Moore.
But Moore is a republican in Alabama. That’s a religion down they’re right? So guess who wins.
It will eventually change. When it changes, it will come as a surprise as it has everywhere where change has occurred.
There are youth who resist the religion and very soon will not be able to escape the state financially. Change will come.
I’m not sure that the good ole boys can put the civil rights changes back into the jug.
Which is why Rev. Barber’s movement has the slogan “Forward together; not one step back”.
This will be the time if enough Alabamans either decide it is the time or enough bigots and hypocrites stay home.
Does the Birmingham Young Republicans thing really matter? They have as much power over the GOP as Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat do. Which is none.
Does it matter that the Birmingham Young Republicans approved a Resolution which rescinds their endorsement of Moore?
If your question is “in and of itself will it cost Moore the election?”, the answer is of course not.
But it matters. Of course it does. Have you read the Resolution? Perhaps you should. It’s very strong. Their ideology is far, far from mine, but there is little I could think to do to improve on their Resolution.
You know another thing that burns these days?
Cynicism.
I’d be interested to see why those Birmingham Young Republicans were Republicans. Did they join because their folks are involved with politics? Did they vote for Trump? I’m skeptical because we all know the infamous “NeverTrump” clowns like David Frum are only that because Trump uses an airhorn and not a dog whistle. Is/was Marco Rubio any more fit for the job than Trump? Of course not!! But they all would have voted for him.
It matters in that they look good after this is over and their action made it easier for the Birmingham News easier to endorse Doug Jones, the first Democratic endorsement in a while.
“Really matter” Well that is what elections are about aren’t they. For the sake of the future of protecting women from assault, I hope Jones wins and Moore is defeated and a lot of Alabamians start reconsidering their kneejerk support of Roy Moore.
Rarely do voters have this clear a choice politically and morally.
We will see soon enough, and a Moore win just means continuation of the status quo.
I’m in terrific disagreement with this view that unless Moore loses it doesn’t make any difference.
Look, the Alabama Republican Party has established a standard, even in this case, that if you fail to maintain your public support for a candidate endorsed by the State Party you will never be endorsed by the State Party for any future campaigns.
In the face of that, Young Republicans in Alabama took this action at great jeopardy to their own political futures. I’d place odds on them having done it because it was the right thing to do, not so they could “look good after this is over”. For those who now have the most power over their political futures, these young activists don’t “look good” at all.
These sorts of actions aren’t everything. They are significant somethings. That goes for Young Democrats pushing their Party leaderships as well.
That says more to me that the GOP either will start having a thin bench, a corrupt bench, or and old bench in the Birmingham area. It might also mean that the Young GOP are clear that their time would be a long ways away. That sort of realization often presages the beginning of a geographical realignment. Sure did work that way for Democrat turncoat Albert Watson of the 2nd District of South Carolina and continued up until Democrats in the old Confederacy lost their last member of Congress (David Price is still hanging on, so that hasn’t happened – Yet).
The pendulum swing to that process would be an interesting turn of events in Alabama.
The chaange always seems impossible–until it happens.
This is an assertion unsustainable by fact in the given context.
Well it appears Tweeden may not be white as snow
https:/www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/18/1716798-More-Photos-Emerging-From-Franken-Tweeden-s-USO
-Tour-They-speak-for-themselves
There’s a whole bunch of questions for witnesses in the investigation of Franken’s behavior and work-ups for Franken’s counsel.
Remember one outcome can be Senator Ellison and Governor Franken.
There is one thing that halts my absolutist “always believe the women”. The small percentage of cases in which there is something else going on. In short, the history that Emmett Till was in fact lynched by an Alabama woman standing up for her politics and menfolk.
The smell of intense politics is just too strong around this entire issue.
so far it’s backfired because of how Franken responded. and it’s good that the default right now is believe the women, pending investigation.
I was, and remain so today, highly suspicious of some of the Bill Clinton womanizing stories — the ones involving actual sexual assault and creepy exhibitionist behavior. I am not one of those who believes the stories of those non-Monica 2-3 other women have improved over time or should be more believed today just because of recent revelations of other men.
Very dicey to try to prove a crime by one person by citing the crimes of unconnected others. I don’t think a court of law would allow such evidence to be presented.
Some allegations, especially in an important political contest, don’t deserve to be automatically assumed true. I put them into a Gray basket of temporary uncertainty carrying no presumptions other than that allegations of felonious behavior need credible proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, and that other woman never struck me as credible nor do I recall them ever offering proof to credibly support their claims. Bill Clinton was an important political target for the GOP at the time, and as we know they have no hesitancy to pull out all the stops to find or create damaging evidence.
Agree to some extent. However, where Paula Jones’ story fell apart for me back then was her claim that Bill whipped it out and expected her to perform fellatio. No lead-in or foreplay, no discussion, just ‘here it is baby and now go for it.’ Men don’t do that merely because a woman has indicated that she might be interested in him. Hah — apparently, some do (and far more) based on recent claims of many women. And recall that Jones disclosed this in 1991. Years before Ms. Lewinsky and what we later learned of their sexual relationship.
(Her sexual harassment suit was still without merit, but I’m now inclined to believe her story and his behavior was as gross as groping.)
That leads me to being more inclined to accept Wiley’s story. But not Brodderick’s.
I have no interest in re-litigating all these claims, but Ken Starr certainly had the time and money to find something, and in the end apparently found nothing. If there was some there there, especially of an embarrassing or illegal nature, well, that’s why the Republicans put him there.
Didn’t Jones allege that in Bill’s alleged exposing himself to her, she noticed some peculiar physical characteristics of his member — which turned out (per physical exam by approved physician) not to be true.
Wrt either Willey or Brodderick, I recall the WH’s Anne Lewis quickly producing a contemporary or post-event letter sent by one of the accusers gushing about her WH visit and Bill. Nothing about any untoward activity by the prez.
Generally, Bill never struck me as the sleazy, creepy kind of Weinstein guy going around sexually assaulting women or the kind of exhibitionist type of president that, say, Lyndon Johnson habitually was.
That said, it’s about as far as I care to revisit some of these things from the 90s. It was exhausting then and tiresome to re-hash it again this decade.
Agree. But is a Weinstein level of sexual abuse/assault the minimum required for public response? If so, that means that Roy Moore and Trump get a pass, in part because as in Clinton’s situation, both are she said/he said situations and when in doubt, our biases favor an otherwise upstanding white guy.
If a woman likes and/or respects a man, that doesn’t give him permission to touch inappropriately, repeatedly leer, and/or repeatedly suggest or insinuate that the two should get a room. Rarely is such behavior not done out of sight and sound of others and more often than not, the man holds some power over the woman. At the lowest level, such harassment is the sort of crap that most women experience and find some way of dealing with by themselves. (We women cut men a lot of slack, but that would never be known from all the whining that men do.) That doesn’t mean that it’s pleasant and non-stressful. Only that it doesn’t cross an actionable line – i.e. persistent, physically intimate or forceful, ‘whipping it out,’ etc.
It’s not so much a minimum of accusers and charges are required now b/c of HW — it’s a matter of minimum credibility. Harvey’s accusers’ stories check out. No credibility problem. Not so Willey and Broaderrick and Jones.
Again, iirc, Kenny Starr took sworn testimony from Bill’s accusers, investigated their claims, and found nothing to report. I.e, there were problems with their stories. No credibility. If there was anything to their stories, Starr and his rabid team of hunters would have found it and shouted their findings to the world. End of story as far as I’m concerned.
I suspect that most of Bill’s female accusers were bought and paid for by Bill’s political opponents in the GOP. Repub operatives were trying to destroy his political prospects since at least 1991 (and maybe a few yrs earlier) when it became clear he would be a leading, and rather formidable, Dem pol to have to reckon with in the near future.
Bill Clinton– garden variety womanizer according to the evidence and his own admission. That’s quite a bit different an animal than rapist or exhibitionist, serious sexual deviancy and violence charges that require more than just mere accusations which tend to fall apart under proper scrutiny.
yes, indeed.and see my comment above
I mean, comment below
Let’s not mush together two (or perhaps three) separate arguments.
There’s a huge amount of territory between a ‘garden variety’ sexual philanderer/adulterer and a rapist. Plus, whatever makes you think that philanderers (who by behavioral definition find plenty of consenting sexual partners or conquests) never force themselves on a non-consenting woman? Behaviors don’t remain in tiny boxes — lots of crossovers (ie Weinstein). Many of which don’t seem to add up to others.
In at least one case, not according to the NYC DA. Without the information on those he paid off (and had agreed not to talk) fewer women would have spoken up and those that did wouldn’t have had the level of credibility that you claim is there. Much easier to dismiss, discredit, and/or slut-shame two or three women than four or more women.
It’s correct that the Clinton accusations were politically contaminated; thus making it impossible to sort out the truth (even for Ken Starr who you seem to credit with some sort of exceptional powers in a he said/she said situation). At the time of Brodderick’s and Jones’ alleged encounters with Clinton they were Democrats (as were most in AR back then). Would they not have been vilified by Democrats if they had immediately gone public with their allegations? Of course. People who have been sexually abused understand the hell a sexual abuse victim is put through if she/he reports it and that the most likely outcome is that they will be shamed, etc. while the perp goes free. So, most say nothing and hope the memory will go away. Delayed reporting is the median (and some like Denny Hastert’s victim refuse ever to go public).
If someone were out to get Clinton by ‘hiring’ a false witness, they sure would have made Jones’ story juicier. In it, she wouldn’t have dropped hints that she found Clinton attractive, she would have had a more innocent explanation for why she went to his hotel room, and Clinton wouldn’t have backed off when she said, “I’m not that type of girl.” (And she’s too stupid to have concocted such a straightforward tale. Liars tend to give themselves away by their penchant for ‘gilding the lily.’)
Brodderick’s story is far more problematical. For one as you mentioned, she’s the only claimed victim that is alleging rape. (There’s another one in England but that may not be credible either.) She also didn’t surface until after the other claimed victims and the Lewinsky details were known. If she did have a private and unpleasant encounter with Clinton, she significantly embellished it. That, particularly when combined with her earlier denial to Starr, makes her a liar. As such, she has nobody but herself to blame for others not believing her.
Still the three stories have a common theme of being forcefully grabbed, groped, and kissed. While totally consensual, was that them absent from his behavior with Lewinsky?
Read this: ‘You’ll never work again’: women tell how sexual harassment broke their careers .
You’re minimizing the impact on women of sexual abuse/harassment that’s far short of rape. Women themselves have difficulty recognizing the full impact and implied threats from being subjected to such abuse and often can’t even get as far as identifying it as abuse.
I’ve already stipulated that wrt Clinton, it was initiated and pursued by his political opponents. The question isn’t whether or not the women were paid to go public (many women and men only do so when financial compensation becomes possible), it’s whether they lied. Perhaps they did and have continued to do so for two decades. (Clinton did choose to pay off Jones to make her go away instead of fighting her in court.) But I tend to doubt that there were more such victims because in his circles there are more women like Lewinsky that would welcome his sexual advances than there are women like Jones. Objectively and at the time, Wiley would have been seen to fit into the welcoming group. (Also and assuming that Brodderick’s rape allegation is false, we’re not speaking of capital offenses on his part; at worst, only the ‘garden variety’ of crap that most women are subjected to at some point in their lives.
Thank you Emma for speaking out.
no one’s minimizing harrassment. two of us are stating that we don’t believe all the accusations re: Clinton. try to keep up.
Even the part about Clinton having her husband and cat murdered?
Why not call her ‘a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty’ since you seem to be borrowing so many other rightwing tropes these days.
FWIW — I was only referring to the alleged non-consensual grab and kiss. And apparently unlike you I 1) don’t delve deeply and exhaustively into the lives and other claims of accusers and 2) recognize that truthfulness that others don’t believe can make one ‘little bit nutty.’
why are you conflating Trump and Clinton?? also too, try to keep up. the underage thing also attaches to Trump, thought to be one reason he won’t speak out about Moore and thought to be on tape being used against him.
are you suggesting Clinton also walked in on teen beauty pageant participants while they were getting dressed?
Okay — I only heard about the Miss USA/Universe contest controversies and not the Miss Teen USA (not sure I knew that there was such a thing) allegations. Trump claimed the former but has denied the latter. Either way, it’s inappropriate for a man to walk through the dressing area of women for these or any other events. (In the old days when beauty pageant owners sought respectability, female matrons were employed and all men were kept out.)
There is one aspect that you’re overlooking — in most instances, there are no witnesses to sexual misconduct/abuse/harassment. In the Trump situation, we’ve got his boasts (since when did he start telling the truth in his boasts?) and dozens of witnesses, most of whom deny the instances of Trump walking in on them while they were naked. Personally, the presence of Trump would creep me out if I were fully clothed because to him women are nothing but props and their value is based on superficial (and very conventional notions of) physical attractiveness. We can agree that he’s a crude pig of a man and based on his own words, he doesn’t deny that.
However, and I think this is what many on the left miss, his fans prefer a crude pig to one that presents a false public face. The average waitress, particularly cocktail waitress and particularly cocktail waitress in a ‘gentleman’s bar with nude dancing show,’ can report more groping, touching, and obvious leering than beauty contest entrants. Who are all the men doing that? The women work there because it’s the best they can do under their circumstances. No woman should ever had to accept that sort of on the job sexual abuse.
I too found many of the stories less than convincing. With the amount of resources deployed to find Clinton’s victims, there should have been many more if he was/ is a serial abuser and not just garden variety guy in power cheating on his wife. Evidently the Gennifer Flowers situation was an ongoing relationship. Just think if that amount of resources were dedicated to finding Roy Moore victims, what might come to light. re Monica: it has been noted that it happened around the time Bill’s mother [sole parent] died, – he was wrong to do it, but there seems to be an emotional basis for his reckless behavior in that instance.
Have you any idea how lame — more like disgusting — that sounds? Plus, other then his consensual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the allegations predate — some long predate — that ‘difficult time’ for him.
my point is not about excusing his actions, certainly not. my point is about compulsive behavior – Clinton’s is not, that’s why I call it garden variety. OTOH Moore’s and Trump’s certainly appears to be so – T even self designates as compulsive. The anti – Clinton press always tried to depict him as “sex- addicted” and did their best, unsuccessfully, to find evidence for their claim.I’m interested to see what more comes out re: Moore.
Let’s not conflate Moore’s behavior with that of Clinton and Trump. As an adult (and way over the age of twenty-one), Moore was trolling a mall for underage girls.
While I have no respect for Trump, not professionally and politically nor his personal morals, he didn’t deny the failures of his first two marriages (publicly, infidelity was the cause of the first failure) and moved on.
As one who has for decades battled them from the ramparts, the trenches, and even on the open plains, I can assure you that their stupidity never ends and there’s cause for celebration when it only wanes.
Generalizing from one’s own personal experience — which we all do to some extent — is naive, provincial, and at worst narcissistic. Sixty years ago it was a different world even in Alabama. Ms. Cooper is likely reflecting on how things worked for her in her time. Dating and courtship in the late 1950s was as different from that of the Victorian era as it is from today. IF one were fortunate enough not to encounter a rapist, a stalker, and/or a guy that gets his jollies by masturbating in the presence of a non-consensual girl/woman. (On that last item, I had no idea this was a thing that some men do; so, I’ve been naive as well.)
However, naïveté , etc. is no excuse for ignorance. But I doubt that Ms. Cooper is unaware of or denies the existence of sexual crimes and misdemeanors. Probably compartmentalized by the status of the accused and the victim. The word of an accused that ticks all the right boxes for her — white, Republican, heterosexual, christian, male — is believed over all others. IOW, she’s a bigot, and that, unlike stupidity, is something that can be challenged.
Trump is on the record as admitting, indeed bragging, that he used to barge into the dressing room of under age girls because he simply liked seeing them nude. This notion that Trump hasn’t admitted to anything is simply not true.
How about the guy who took a gun to a pro-discussion in church and shot himself and his wife with one bullet?
I’m SHOCKED!, SHOCKED! there’s ignorance in Alabama. Shocked I tell ya! Did I mention I’m shocked?
Maybe the North should just secede this time. Slavery’s been abolished, there’s no great moral cause that justifies bloodshed. I’m half joking.