I don’t think Franken is being held to a lower standard. I think what he did is fundamentally different than what Trump (or Moore or whoever else) did. The kiss was plausibly a legitimate thing. Skit comedy occasionally involves two performers kissing and they are rehearsed. Her accusation rests on interpreting Franken’s actions to ascribe a motive. Compare that with Moore fondling a 14 year old girl. There’s no possible innocent explanation for that. It’s a binary choice. Either Moore did that, and therefore committed sexual assault, or he didn’t. If phrased or interpreted in a different way, Franken’s actions, as described by the woman, aren’t sexual assault.
For the people who suggest Al Franken should quit, are you able to identify some criteria for “offenses” which presumptively render an individual unfit for political service?
I’m not saying Franken behaved well. But given all the evidence I’ve heard to date, I personally do not believe it establishes that he is unfit for his current job.
Are you saying that every individual who is credibly accused of inappropriate touching (2 instances if you consider the kiss and picture separate) ought to step down from public office? Does recency or frequency matter at all?
Are there any other mistakes/indiscretions that you advocate being judged as harshly? Excessive drinking? Drug use? Misdemeanor convictions? Accusations of assault or battery (such as an isolated fistfight or physical threats)?
Like I said, I’m not defending Franken’s actions, but I do not think them anywhere CLOSE to warranting his removal. If they are, they I expect a WHOLE bunch of other folk from both parties and at all levels to help him out the door.
The quote you post regarding Franken’s complaint of being taken out of context, is itself taken out of context. Franken was a Saturday Night live comedian. The rape sketch was never produced or even really advocated by Franken, it was just something that came up in a 2AM brain storming session, when everyone was throwing out any ideas that came to mind whily nilly in the hope of coming up with something that they could turn into a show. This was not a time for any form of self censoring. And so it is not surprising that in 15 years of such brainstorming sessions Franken at one point pitched an idea that was way over the line.
The Pornoramma was an over the top satirical advertisement for a sexbot which included bestiality among its functions. Of course going from this to claiming Franken was promoting bestiality makes as much sense as blaming Johnathan Swift for promoting cannibalism.
Frankens point was that his behavior at that time is what one should expect from a comedian whose catering to a modern mainstream audience. He wasn’t Donyy Osmond but he wasn’t really outside the mainstream either. But he agrees that it is not the sort of behavior that is acceptable from a senator. So his point was that as a senate candidate he had to condemn the actions, even though in the context of his profession at the time, they were appropriate and so should not require apologizing.
I recommend Franken’s book. I found it amusing and enlightening.
Note: this post is only defending Franken for the events referred to in Pantastic’s quote and is not intended as a defense against the current set of allegations.
We do, apparently.
Something can be “consistent” by means of a clever formulation which includes the inconsistency (you, or your side) as part of the standard itself, which is all you’ve done. It doesn’t make things consistent in a meaningful sense.
That said, I observe that a couple of other posters (Falchion, RP) subsequently made the same basic point I was making. You might be better off focusing on their posts instead of mine.
There’s no perfect solution. The present errs to an overwhelming degree in the favor of abusers and accused abusers and against accusers. My proposal might (just might!) err a little bit in favor of accusers and a little against accused abusers. I haven’t yet seen a proposal that’s “fairer” than mine, IMO, and the present is overwhelmingly worse, IMO.
The problem is that Weinstein’s misdeeds were well known for years before it came out to the public. He is known to have, bribed, threatened and cajoled people into staying silent. In addition, even if Harvey Weinstein had never sexually touched another person in his life, he was still a nasty piece of work. He was verbally abusive and threatening. He employed blackmail. He physically assaulted several people. Through one guy down the stairs. Wrestled with an aide over M&M’s. Weinstein was a thoroughly evil man in all respects.
The problem is when every allegation is treated as credibility as Weinstein’s and everyone who faces such allegations is compared to him. Like, say George H W Bush. He is a doddering old man in a wheelchair. Doubt he even knows what day it is most of the time. Yet apparently he is on the same level.
Its like looking at Bernie Madoff and comparing every petty theif to him and sayig they should be treated the same way.
LHoD, you can add me to the list of people that find your proposed standard decidedly self-serving.
Here’s a suggestion.
If Franken resigns, his appointed replacement would only serve until November 2018, when an election would be held for his replacement.
So here’s the suggestion: let the people of Minnesota decide. Franken resigns, with the understanding that (a) he won’t be appointed for the vacancy created by his resignation, but (b) if the people of Minnesota vote him back in next November, it’s no harm, no foul.
A year on the sidelines seems to me to be a reasonable consequence for his actions. And if the people of Minnesota decide next year to extend that period, that should be their choice.
This strikes me as remarkably fair. It might not inoculate the Democratic Party against accusations of harboring sexual assaulters if Franken were to win, but it does seem to provide some significant punishment for the accused. More than a nothingburger censure, but less than a banishment from public life.
It does prompt a question in my mind though: If the people of Alabama, being generally aware of the accusations that have come to light against Roy Moore, choose to send him to the Senate, are you comfortable applying the same “no harm, no foul” verdict?
You give people “the benefit of the doubt” if you’re contemplating giving them some sort of consequence. Not when you’re contemplating what the facts are, and especially if you’re contemplating some consequence for the other guy.
I’ve said earlier that 1) even after the picture there is still some uncertainty about precisely what happened, and 2) in this particular case it does not appear that political motivations are a factor. What I’m mostly defending is the general - and seemingly obvious - notion that in a situation where the accusation has significant political ramifications, these might be one motivation to consider as part of the overall picture.
They have their choice. Certainly, picking the maximum political impact timing to make the accusation would open them up more than other times.
[FWIW, from what I can tell, the reason these accusations tend to crop up around election time is not generally due to political motivations on the part of the accusers. Rather, it’s because at those times, the opposing campaigns and reporters tend to snoop around and ferret out rumors and contact women who were not themselves inclined to bring up something they’ve put behind them years ago.]
The trouble is not just that it is a double standard. It’s that it’s a standard that has been used to dismiss/minimize sexual harassment against women all along.
“Okay, he groped you, but he is our best salesman, and if we lose him, we lose significant revenue. So you better just get over it.”
Or, as NOW phrased it with Bill - “OK, so he exposed himself and told you to blow him. He’s pro-abortion, so you should just keep your mouth shut about it.”
So to speak.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe he should just run for re-election in 2020.
I don’t think I agree with this particular critique.
Firstly, it makes no difference if something is similar to some other objectionable standard or not, and it’s possible for “pro-abortion” to be a price worth paying while “best salesman” is not.
But more importantly, the question is what you’re doing in “dismissing/minimizing” sexual harassment. In your salesman case, the guy is being left in place to continue to harass this woman and other women. In cases like Franken, I don’t think fewer people are going to be harassed if he left the senate as opposed to if he stayed, and it’s more a matter of punishing past misdeeds and sending a message.
Is it appropriate? But of course. I kick him in the balls.
Is an incident like this rational to react like you prudish americans are reacting to? No. I have experienced things very much worse than merely the pushing of a possible kiss to far, I do not feel damaged…
the treatment of the photo, and recollections of a kiss, which maybe was subject - as subject of the political death sentence when you tolerate actual violances, it is just something to share the head at, the strange puritanism even among the Left here.
Oh no I am an evil horrible bitch and the anti american. Unacceptable to enjoy a statement from me.
Consent… an easy phrase you use. Just file a triple signed form twenty-seven B stroke six…
But perhaps it is uniquely in my partially latin culture that we experience some ambiguity even in ourselves as what is the consent, or I am perhaps the strange person who has not experienced this idea as black and white…
Of course we do not react in the way of the anglosaxons puritans to, as the phrase goes, the ‘hand on the panier’ in the internalization of the idea of ‘violation’ which I find very strange - a good smack is satifying.
Is it stronger as the motivating factor?
It is strong. But the violence, from the american movies it has very much the grand attraction.
In any case no statement here that I make is in ‘defense’ of this Franken, he looks like a beefy pig to me, but the over-reaction and the hysteria to the described events, the over valorization of the meaning of a sexual aspect and the shrugging on the non sexual… it simply looks very strange to my eyes. It is puritanist.
I think perhaps as a foreigner, and perhaps younger I don’t know, you aren’t fully familiar with the Bill Clinton situation. The Lewinsky case got all the oxygen in part because Clinton lied about it in a court proceeding, what he was impeached for (but acquitted). However that case is not so relevant to setting any precedent about strictly non-consensual sex scandals now, albeit it has some relevance to hypocrisy about ‘power imbalance’ in consensual relationships.
But the non-consensual accusations v Clinton were in fact not gone over with that fine tooth a comb at the time. Most of the media decided they didn’t meet traditional standards for what’s printable (not necessarily because they liked Clinton’s politics, though perhaps that too in part). Now you can find links saying the Willey and Broaddrick accusations were baseless, doesn’t make it so. Likewise Paula Jones sued for sexual harassment, in contrast to another relatively early Clinton peccadillo, Gennifer Flowers, which was a straight up affair outside work.
Another factors is simply that societal attitudes have changed. Back in Clinton’s heyday there was more scandal potential relatively in simple adultery. In which context the standard foreign comment about ‘American puritanism’ perhaps had more validity. Nowadays there’s a much bigger difference in scandal level between consensual and non-consensual sexual misconduct by married men (as it still almost always is). And there’s less tendency to assume sexual assault allegations have no truth to them if they can’t be proved, which is the only basis on which a reasonable person would dismiss the ones against Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton and the treatment of the allegations against him, on both sides, is a major factor in the politics of this issue. Again practically if Democrats had been saying in the 1990’s what NY Senator (D) Kristen Gillibrand said the other day, that Bill Clinton should have resigned, the partisan politics of this issue would be different now. That’s not ‘going after Clinton’, that’s stating a clear political fact in the US. As I said, no two cases are identical, but pointing out (alleged) differences in the credibility of the non consensual allegations against BC v some other case doesn’t mean the battle over BC’s conduct isn’t a big shadow over this whole issue: it clearly is.
I think you’ve made yourself clear by now on your opinion of us benighted Americans, but you haven’t exactly made your point yet.
OK, we’re all Puritans. Somehow, despite our scandalous reaction to normal romantic overtures, we’ve still elected more than one probable-rapist to the office of the Presidency. We seem to have a problem, in short, with the fact that people in power keep sexually assaulting people.
You’ve diagnosed us. Puritans, the lot of us. What’s your prescription, if you have one? Is the point that this isn’t a problem? We’re inventing that this is bad? Do you have any input as to what we should do about that, from your enlightened perch? Should we kick them in the balls and then go on with having a rapist president putting people in charge of the Office on Violence against Women and the Department of Education and the Justice Department and so on?
I didn’t notice whether or not this was discussed, but I have a question (actually I have several related questions).
What is the purpose and reasoning behind a statute of limitations for sexual assault? Secondly, is that something that should be considered with dealing with accusations in which the accused has little ability to defend themselves in the public’s eye? I mean the accused, if innocent, is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. He can say it didn’t happen and now he’s accusing the accuser of lying which makes him look even worse if you believe the accusations. Or he can apologize (as in Jeffrey Tambor’s case) for whatever misperceptions resulted from the interaction, thereby denying it but in a less accusatory manner. And then what? He still loses his job and deals with people thinking he’s a sexual predator? How does the accused defend themselves outside of a criminal charge? Is it reasonable to assume that a lack of civil action means there’s not enough evidence even to hold someone civilly liable? And should that influence our opinion of the veracity of the claims? I’d love to hear from those who believe the accusations and don’t believe Franken’s meager explanation. And what about Jeffrey Tambor? His response was quite clear.
A third question, one I presented earlier. What is the appropriate thing for an accused man to do if he is, in fact, innocent of the accusations? What should he say?
This is a very good question, but only from the perspective of people who believe such situations exist. But many people seem to believe that all credible accusations should be treated as true. From that vantage point, this question is moot, as the situation doesn’t exist.
My opinion is there’s not anything wrong with telling the truth. If it didn’t happen, you can say so. If you weren’t in the room, never met the person, then state the facts.
So there’s a way to protest your innocence, but that requires a pretty absolute claim to factual innocence. The difficult thing is that, in the cases we’re talking about, “innocent” is a subjective determination and at least the general framework of what happened doesn’t seem to be in dispute. What’s in dispute is what meaning to take from them. If Franken’s response was “that never happened, I never touched her, never did anything inappropriate, I’m blindsided by this,” then fair play. But it seems like he did in fact do something. That’s where it gets thorny.
“Yes I kissed her, no comment on the tongue part, but there’s no way I assaulted her, and that picture was a joke” is not really the same thing as a protestation of innocence. So if you’re asking what’s the right way to respond when you did in fact kiss somebody who is now saying they did not want you to kiss them, and your understanding of what happened is that you didn’t do anything wrong and it went a little differently than the allegations, but generally speaking the incident happened, then the right response is the one he gave: I’m sorry about this, and I think somebody should investigate this because it’s important. Because, you know, lots of people think they’re innocent, and not all of them are.
The headlines at various news outlets are a bit comical this morning:
Fox News: Al Done? Grope-gate puts Franken’s Senate future in jeopardy as critics call for resignation
CNN: Trump blasts Franken but stays silent on Moore
MSNBC: crickets a search of ‘Franken’ on the home page can’t uncover a single mention. It’s down the memory-hole for them.