Senator Al Franken?

ringo responds to me:

quote:

---

When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

---

What's that have to do with anything? We're trying to determine if the tree fell down or was chopped down.

NoNukes responds to me:

quote:

---

You are one of the two parties involved. So yes, both your impression and her impression are relevant. Despite your claim not to have expressed your opinion, you appear to have accepted her explanation.

---

Have I? I've had a lot of stage kisses...that specific one is the one that stands out most in my mind.Besides, what does that have to do with anything? Intent is not magic. Just because she didn't mean to do it doesn't mean it didn't happen. As you just said, my impression is relevant as well as hers. So can't both be true?Can't the women who feel they were sexually assaulted by Franken be true *and* Franken's claim of not actually trying to assault them both be true? We're talking about whether or not he should resign for sexual assault. So the only criterion is whether or not the constituent says they feel violated? Does that mean anytime anyone says they feel violated, that's enough?And again, shouldn't Franken's remorse mean anything? Is there no room for contrition and reform?

quote:

---

I'll also add, that even if she kissed you without your prior consent or without asking, it does matter whether or not you were okay with it after the fact. At least as far as sexual assault is concerned.

---

From a legal standpoint, perhaps, but this isn't a legal case. It's one of ethics. Should Franken resign for this? Is it truly impossible to conceive that the women do feel violated but that Franken didn't actually try to do so? Again, that doesn't change what happened. But can't both people's opinion of it be true?To my example, what should have happened to her? Should she have been dismissed? Should she no longer be cast in anything in the future?

quote:

---

I have formed my option about Franken and your story does nothing to persuade me otherwise. It does not even introduce any doubt.

---

I'm not surprised.I'm a man and the perpetrator was a woman, after all. And it's *me* you're dealing with. And you don't actually care about this event. So of course you're not going to consider why the exact same thing happening to me might have some bearing about how you are reacting to Franken.

quote:

---

You tell me.

---

Why? You didn't wait for any investigation into Franken before coming to a conclusion. Why the sudden need for more information in my case?

quote:

---

If you aren't going to give me your side of the story, then you haven't come close to presenting the same pictures that we have of Moore's and Franken's accusers.

---

So when Tweeden said she didn't think Franken should resign, doesn't that matter?

Hopefully more response to your message later (gave it a (+)), but for now I bemoan the lack of female input in this topic.Alas, I can only think of 5 female members that have been posters in this forum - Faith, the dearly departed Asgara, Purpledawn (who I recall being a military veteran), Schraffinator, and Roxrkool. 4 of 5 are long inactive here.Moose

The message this is a response to was close to getting a Post of the Month nomination from me.But the most of the following chain of messages strike me more along the lines of less than rational nagging. At the minimum, I think you could have gone about it in a considerably friendlier manner.Don't begin to think that I'm not on your side in this topic. I doubt that anyone of this forum is more bummed by what has happened to Franken.Or something like that.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Wording tweak.

Percy writes:

quote:

---

Yeah, there's such an upside to coming forward with accusations of sexual harassment. I can't believe all women don't do it. Why can't everyone understand this and just ignore the obviously spurious charges against Franken and Trump and Moore and Weinstein and all the rest?

---

As the Duke Lacrosse case tells us, it does happen.And it even happened with Franken. Right after Tweeden, another accusation came against Franken by Melanie Morgan claiming that he was stalking her.But it turns out that what happened was that they were both on Real Time with Bill Maher. She is a conservative commentator (and that's putting it *mildly*...she accused George Soros of aiding and abetting the Nazis when they invaded Hungary when he was 13 "to advance his career" which caused the manager of the radio station to interrupt her program to deny her claims; and that New York Times editor Bill Keller should be tried for treason and that she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber"...but hey, Maher was never one for having any sanity in his choice of guests) and made some false statements about the economy on air. He then tried to follow up with her afterward, talking to the producers of RTwBM for her contact information.So let me get this straight...you go on national television with the author of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and The Truth with Jokes and make false statements and you are shocked, SHOCKED that he has an attention span longer than the closing credits and wants to follow up? And you're someone who regularly makes outrageous and false claims about liberals you don't like?Yeah, there's a reason that we don't really hear about her anymore.Let's not forget that Roger Stone knew about the accusations against Franken before they were actually made and that Tweeden is a conservative commentator and is pals with Hannity.And many of the accusers are anonymous.There is a lot of political stink around some (not all) of the accusations against Franken, one brazenly so, that we need to be careful.This is why the "zero tolerance" attitude is so dangerous: All it takes is one bad instance to completely destroy any progress that might get made. The Duke case pretty much ended any real examination of sexual assault on campus. The Keillor case is also not helping: MPR is being very cagey about what happened, providing no details at all, not even to Keillor.It reminds me of when I was accused of sexual harassment at work: An anonymous person made a submission to HR concerning me and some comments I made...but HR didn't tell me what or when. But it now meant that I had an accusation on my record and with absolutely no details, there was no way for me to know what I did and thus try to change my behaviour in order to never let it happen again. And this was at a time where the company was being acquired by another so my job was now suddenly on the line, all because an anonymous person made an accusation with no way to determine what happened and no way for me to respond.So yeah, it happens. It happened to me.We're back to the questions you refuse to answer, Percy:When you say you "believe the women," what is it you believe? What does that mean?

quote:

---

I know that last must seem contradictory given my calls for Franken's resignation right from the first, but that was when I truly believed that he knew what he had done. Now I'm not so sure. The human mind is a strange and complex thing, and though deep in my heart I believe the women, Franken does seem to genuinely believe they are mistaken.

---

Yea! We're getting somewhere!Can't they both be true? Can't the women believe that they were violated and can't Franken also not have done anything deliberately to do so? That doesn't alter the fact that his hands may have landed where they shouldn't have.And yes, it is contradictory to what you were saying before. This is why "zero tolerance" is such a poor policy: You end up jumping the gun and being incapable of handling nuance.

quote:

---

Of course, since I believe the women I think he's lucky to have avoided the Ethics Committee, believing it would have come out very badly for him.

---

And now we're back to the other question you have avoided:It happened to me, Percy. Was I sexually assaulted?Because if I wasn't, might that not also be the result from an investigation into Franken? If we investigated and found that what happened was that Franken put his hand around the waist of someone taking a picture with him (like you do) and did the "shooka-shooka" that you do in an upbeat interaction, much like a handshake, but that he was going so fast, having just done his 100th picture of the night, he wasn't paying attention too closely and accidentally grabbed the wrong place.Is that enough to say he should resign? Note, it doesn't change anything about what happened or how the women feel about what happened. You can still "believe the women," whatever that means.But just because you believe them, does that mean he should resign?

quote:

---

Still, I've stated that I liked Franken, and I still like Franken, and were I a Minnesota resident I would vote for him for Senator again, but only after he'd risen before microphones and stated, "I did it, I regret it, and I apologize, both for my actions and for my later denials."

---

Even for things he didn't do? Because he did all of that for some of the accusers. Is he supposed to take responsibility for any random person who accuses him no matter what?

Minnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

But the most of the following chain of messages strike me more along the lines of less than rational nagging. At the minimum, I think you could have gone about it in a considerably friendlier manner.

---

Right...because Percy's ignoring of a simple question that will show he is engaging with his argument and explaining his reasoning is "friendly."Remember, Moose, you were part of the problem when the homophobia was raging on the board. *YOU* were the one who suspended me for pointing out the inappropriate treatment you and the other admins were taking against Dan Carroll and berberry. You then lied about why I was suspended. So thank you for at least understanding the point I'm trying to make with regard to Franken, but your opinion about "less than rational nagging" regarding Percy is, to put it "in a considerably friendlier manner," disingenuous at best and you will understand if I consider your admonition to be not worth the photons it was written with.Once again, you have entered into a situation and ignored the person causing the trouble in order to attack the person pointing it out.I notice you didn't answer the question that Percy refuses to answer:Was I sexually assaulted?When we say, "I believe the women," what does that mean?

Minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

I bemoan the lack of female input in this topic.

---

I see...sexual assault only counts when a man assaults a woman. Only a female victim of sexual assault can understand what it means to be assaulted.What about me, Moose? It happened to me. Don't I have something to say about it? I've had the entire gamut of sexual crimes committed against me from peeping to groping to rape. Why is it you can't engage with me? Me being a male means I can't have something to say about what it means to be assaulted?Was I sexually assaulted?When we say, "I believe the women," what does that mean?I truly understand the frustration women have with being believed regarding sexual crimes committed against them because for a man to say it happened to them...especially at the hands of a woman...is Invisible Pink Unicorn territory. I also fully understand that the experience of women as a class is quite different from that of men as a class. Pretty much every single woman is going to have stories like mine while most men aren't.But those stories still happened to me. You're looking for someone with the perspective of being a victim of sexual impropriety against them, right?Hi.I'm right here.

Heard on Facebook that the next 72 hours will see a lot of resignations.Implied but not stated is that the names of those who used taxpayer funds to settle sexual harassment suits could become known.Also Paul Ryan is retiring (job done?).If so, then the 2018 elections just became a whole lot more interesting, get your popcorn ready.Enjoy

No, I'm trying to determine what "sound" is. Is it a wave in the air caused by a falling tree or is it what is perceived by an observer?I'm trying to determine what a "sexual assault" is. Is it what the victim perceived or is it what the perpetrator intended? Both "assault" and "sexual" are open to interpretation.

ringo responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm trying to determine what a "sexual assault" is. Is it what the victim perceived or is it what the perpetrator intended? Both "assault" and "sexual" are open to interpretation.

---

Indeed. Some instances are easy to determine. What Moore is accused of doing is clearly "sexual assault": There is no other possible motivation for grabbing someone's head and shoving it into your crotch after locking the car door and trying to kiss them.Now, for the women who say Franken groped them, they all seem to be in the context of having had a picture taken where it seems like it's possible that Franken didn't realize what it was he was doing. That doesn't change what happened and it certainly doesn't alter how they felt about what happened.But is sexual assault dependent solely upon how a person feels about it? Inferral is magic? As long as a person feels it was sexual assault, that means it is?And that's why I keep saying that Franken's case is complicated. It is possible to believe both the women and Franken. That still doesn't mean he's necessarily innocent...a man who can't pay attention to where his hands go over and over again is not exactly a paragon. And that may be enough to say he should resign. But if we can't tell if I was sexually assaulted, by what right have we to say that Franken assaulted anybody?

First of all, thanks Jah that your valuable point seems to have been resolved to a conclusion.In the context of this topic and in the context of the wider topic, bad treatment (including sexual assault) to an individual by another individual has indeed been very largely an woman assaulted by a man thing. And as best I can tell, we have damn few women participating in evcforum.net.Moose

I think we need to distinguish between inappropriate touching, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.Consider a person going down the street and patting people on the butt -- should they be put on a sexual predator registry? I think not, just told it isn't appropriate.A kiss with tongue falls into that category -- it's inappropriate, but it's not necessarily sexual. Groping the crotch is sexual assault. Grabbing a breast is sexual assault. Reaching inside someones clothes is sexual assault.toContinually asking someone to have sex is sexual harassment not assaultMy experience - when I was 19 that involved me being too drunk to stand, and a person unzipped me and fondled my boys - was sexual assault. It was not a kiss. It was not a request.Lumping these together in my mind diminishes the actual sexual assault. Just like making false claims diminishes #MeToo.Franken, as far as I can see, at most made inappropriate contact and inappropriate mock (for a gag photo) groping, but not actual sexual assault.Meanwhile in the last 24 hours we have two more republicans and one more democrat that will be resigning and one mention of a woman being accused of sexual harassment.Now I do think that sexual harassment and inappropriate touching are not proper for an elected official. I also think that sexual assault should lead to prosecution and if convicted to being registered as a sexual predator.The 2018 elections will be quite interesting.Enjoy

In the end, only the justice system can say. They have their own thresholds for both "sexual" and "assault". I think Franken was right to resign but I think he should run again to let the voters decide. And the voters should have the right to decide on Moore, too. If they choose to elect an accused child molester or a convicted serial killer, they should have the right to do so.

They already decided, he lost.

Consider the general personal profile of the above mentioned:Weinstein - In a position of great power over the women accusers, in an industry long notorious for the "casting couch" concept.Trump - He admitted to and indeed bragged about bad behavior (eg - the "Miss Teen America" (IIRQ) situation). Also, one in a position of power there. And abundant public evidence (eg - debates with Hillary) that he's fundamentally an asshole.Moore - I believe there is something more than "she said" evidence in his case. And he does have a pretty solid image as being a neanderthal when it comes to progressive women's issues.I also bring up Anthony Weiner. As I recall, he had at least some pretty strong progressive positions/actions as a U.S. congressman, but it seems that there was/is just something deeply psychologically wrong with him.Franken - Yes, he did have some pretty reprehensible behavior in the Franken & Davis era, and even beyond. But I think that there is strong evidence that he is a "born again feminist", which isn't something you're going to accuse Weinstein, Trump, or Moore of being. I think he has been a powerful tool for progressive feminist issues, especially since he is a man.My impression is that a common situation for misbehavior is when the man is in a position of power over one or more women. There is a public statement from the women of Franken's staff, that says that he has done no misbehavior towards them.Concerning the "photos at the state fair situation". Franken was not in a position of power over those women. Indeed, as voters or potential voters, the women were in some small position of power over him. As I said before, it would be pretty stupid for a politician to deliberately do behavior that would alienate a voter.As I've also previously said, the state fair is a very public place having lots of people having lots of cameras, where Franken would be getting lots of attention. I would think that there would be an abundant supply of photos and video out there, of Franken's behavior at the fair. Has any photo/video come out, documenting bad Franken behavior? Not that I know of, and I'm confident it would come out if it existed. Franken is a self-confessed "hugger". Maybe there was some excesses in his sincere physical affections towards others. And maybe some of those others fall into the category "easily offended". I can't see how he could come out looking worse that he currently does. Regardless, current Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Tina Smith has been appointed to fill the Franken vacancy, with her intending to run in the 2018 special election. I don't see any situation where Franken would enter a primary election agains Tina Smith.Minnesota side note -

quote:

---

A new disagreement over the state constitution surfaced Wednesday at the Minnesota Capitol when Gov. Mark Dayton named Lt. Gov. Tina Smith to the U.S. Senate.

​

The Minnesota Constitution states that the last elected presiding officer of the senate shall become lieutenant governor. That presiding officer is state Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville. She says she’s ready to fulfill her constitutional obligation to assume the office but she doesn’t plan to give up her Senate seat.

​

A memo from the Senate’s top lawyer backing up her position cites an 1898 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that decided the same question. In 1898, the lieutenant governor presided over the Senate. A 1971 constitutional amendment separated the two jobs.

​

A 1968 amendment prohibited senators or representatives from holding any other office but the Senate lawyer contends the core reasoning of the earlier court decision still applies. He did, however, warn Fischbach that her plan to hold two offices at once could be challenged in court.

---

SourceThe Republicans hold a narrow margin in the Minnesota Senate.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Posted message to soon, when it looking like browser problems were going to loose the message. Had a little to add.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Call it fixing a typo.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add a ")".