I see what you mean, Hitler was right!!!
You know who else was right?
deleted
Someone who bothered to try to figure out what people were saying before responding?
I can imagine a number of reasons women might fail to react one way or another, and might fail to show shock or dismay.
And tho I would not be horribly distressed if my butt were grabbed, that is not to say someone else oughtn’t react far more profoundly.
I prefer not to even debate whether it happened one way or another. Even the worst descriptions to date: an unwanted wet kiss, a sophomoric photo, and a butt grab - do not merit resignation.
No. Someone who gets a joke!
Sorry - long thread.
Can anyone who has been to a USO show report on the common level of entertainment in a show headlined by a comedian? How are racy models featured? Are sexual entendres common? Or is it more highbrow with chamber music and recitation of sonnets? Can any generalities be made? The setting may be relevant.
Its not that she was ill-informed on policy matters, its that she spread disinformation and got paid for it. You think maybe she would make more money if she got more attention? Go ahead, take a wild stab at it, be bold!
Kinda hints at motivation, don’t you think?
According to the article, she was supposed to MC the show. Introduce the guests. She herself said that USO shows are rife with sexual innuendo. But, as I noted before, innuendo is just that-- innuendo. It does not mean actual sexual or sexualized acts.
Excuse me for assuming you actually meant what you posted.
So what exactly is your point?
I actually do like your style, but it sometimes makes your substance hard to decipher. Or even to discern if there is any substance altogether, FTM.
That this:
Is bunk (emphasis added), and if you don’t realize why, ask your wife, girlfriend, sister or other female acquaintance.
FTR, she posed nude for Playboy in 2011, after the events in question. And she posed clothed for Playboy before the events in question, which seems to me to be a little unusual for a glamour model. This supports the contention that she did have boundaries, though their combination might have been a little unusual.
If somebody claims that it’s reasonable to assume that she wouldn’t mind having that sort of photo taken, I’m going to need some better evidence.
Media Matters publishes the full transcript, so sourcing isn’t especially relevant.
She also said that the photo shows that she was groped while she was asleep. That’s not an entirely balanced treatment of the photo, which shows a shadow. Banquet Bear has noted the plausibility of contact with an object while still having a flash cast a shadow. That’s possible. But I find the characterization originally made to be not especially careful. So yeah: pattern.
As I said earlier though, I find the spine of her story to be plausible. Investigation good, rush to judgment bad.
Innuendo can’t be photographed?
Is she saying that if she was not asleep it would be a skit?
That photo was concretized innuendo. It looks like part of almost any USO show since ww2, and Al seems to be in the Bob Hope role.
We were talking about the show itself. Her comments about innuendo had to do with the skit with the kiss in it.
The photo was not part of the show. The photo was taken on the flight back to the US from Afghanistan. We’re talking about someone who, if she was paid at all, would have been paid a nominal fee to fly half-way around the world into a war zone to entertain the troops. I don’t care where she worked before that… she didn’t deserve to be photographed like that.
I wasn’t questioning whether she said what she was quoted as saying, so the transcript is irrelevant.
But was she was accused of was misrepresenting some law. It’s very common that the interpretation of laws is subject to different viewpoints, and in addition, there are sometimes things which are the practical impact of laws even if they’re not explicitly in the text of the law. So you frequently find disputes over what this or that law means or doesn’t mean. In this case, we’re relying on the Media Matters’ assessment that she misrepresented that law. That might not be the case, so I noted this in passing.
So what I’m wondering is, was the intent to humiliate, or to josh?
If Franken and the photographer had been in several contexts with her where she was rubbing butts with singers and making off-color jokes with everyone around her, is it possible he regarded this photograph as yet another off-color joke that she’d think was funny, similar to rubbing butts?
Franken tells us himself that he doesn’t remember what was going through his head at the time, so we’ll probably never know. She seems to think it was humiliating, and Franken says he understands why she would feel “violated”. I would say best to leave it at that rather than try to parse some degree of lesser badness into this.
She said:
That’s the part I’m wondering about. She’s imputing a motive to him, and I’m wondering whether it’s an incorrect imputation.
I have an ex-coworker that I’m friends with and see at parties. Once at a party she pulled out her phone and showed me a picture of a naked woman that she claimed looked like her wife (she was showing it to everybody). She has a pretty raunchy sense of humor. I have another friend I don’t work with who has never made the slightest raunchy joke to me.
I’m not the sort to show nudie pix to friends on my cell phone. But if I showed the first friend a nudie picture, I would expect her to laugh. If I showed the same picture to my second friend, I’d expect it to end not only that friendship, but several other friendships, as news of my transgression spread.
If my first friend felt violated by my showing her such a picture, I wouldn’t try to deny her feelings, but I’d really question my whole understanding of the friendship and of what I thought I knew about her.
Context matters, and I wonder if Franken vastly misread the context of their relationship.
OK, I missed that earlier. No prob.