Women have traditionally been marginalized/intimidated/silenced in these matters and that has to stop. THAT would be the positive outcome of this avalanche of unmaskings of predators. Women need to be taken seriously and treated respectfully, and their accusations must be investigated. Women also need to be encouraged to speak, and protected when they do. Which is a big issue. And its entangled in other issues: rank, power, money. This avalanche will hopefully help create an environment wherein women will feel protected enough to be able to come forward. If we work through all this with reasonable intelligence, society will benefit.

But to treat every accusation as fact opens the door to terrible potential mischief. Not good.

How so? In what way? Because of this issue finally being brought into the light and dealt with after so many years?

The decline of America is a notion that I was in denial about for a very long time. But, it has become far too clear today that America is in a state of deep and possibly irreversible decline by any number of standards of which sexual misconduct is but one small part.

The problem with "this issue", as with any other challenge facing America and her very tenuous grip on a global leadership role, is the decreasing capacity of a large proportion of the American people for any semblance of understanding of the world in which they live.

See [20].

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/opinion/were-with-stupid.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

A piece by Tim Egan - We're With Stupid - explains the acceleration of the decline of America, in a nutshell, as it were ... :(

Don't forget, this is the Caterpillar scandal age, and more shoes are set to drop. The premise,'the women we handsome Reps molest do not object' is false anyway, and if we squint real hard we might find a single handsome GOP rep (Pence looks like one of my old GI Joe dolls - er, - action figures). heh.

But seriously dude, don't speak too soon. If Trump is behind this, he's got other fish to fry. He's taken a real personal dislike to McConnell, for instance, and his fellow Senator Paul, just to start.

The problem is, when the standard insists that everything said by the accuser is automatically assumed to be true, the door is left wide open for political mischief. This is one of he reasons that English Common Law insisted upon the opposite - that all accused are innocent until proven guilty. And not in the forum of public opinion, but in a court with rules of evidence.

Did the Salem Witch Trials and McCarthy Era teach us nothing?

This tradition has come head-to-head with the wishes of Womens' Rights advocates, who have complained justifiably that victims of sexual harassment weren't being believed (often enough) when they told their stories.

But I don't think the answer is to throw out our concepts about fairness and justice and law, just to achieve that end. The system should be reformed, most certainly, but the presumption of innocence before the law ought to be sacrosanct.

So CW, Moral Relativism isn't a bug, it's a feature of the justice system. You are assured by the law to be tried according to the facts as they relate to you, not as they relate to Harvey Wienstein. The standards by which such trial would be conducted are the same for each of you, but, thank goodness, the circumstances that are unique to each of you can and should be taken into account.

Franken is savvy to all this. He volunteered to 'cooperate' with the Ethics committee, meaning that he can move the matter into a sober forum of fact-finders.

I was not so much offended as I was appalled that someone would think such shockingly tone deaf statements were humorous.

One problem was the juxtaposition of comparing Democrats and Republicans in the way that you did, making light of and minimizing such an important issue, and trying to partisanize it.

But even more egregious was that you see nothing wrong with the following two statements? :

"The women we handsome Reps molest do not object"?

Really dude? So just because those women were saying no, pushing men away, being assaulted, just because your ego tells you that you are handsome, it is therefore somehow ok and that they really want it? Do you not see the contradiction between "molest" and "not object" (implying consent) being used in the same sentence?

"We Republicans, such as I and the Moron-in-
Chief, are such handsome devils that the women we molest not only do not complain, they keep coming back for more of the same!"

This one is just as bad. Do you seriously believe that anyone really keeps coming back for more abuse because they like or enjoy it when there is no consent, or because of concern for the power held over them and the amount of coercion that is applied? Are unequal power dynamics not a factor in your world view?

You are all so just so handsome men? You can wrap up things like slavery and prison in pretty gold paper and bows, but just because they look good, doesn't make them any less unpleasant or just as painful a loss of freedom or dignity.

What was it that offended you most? That "All Dems are so gawdam ugly", or that "The women we handsome Reps molest do not object"?

Apparently her story is morphing -- she said she'd agreed to "the kiss" rehearsal but then he overdid it. We don't know yet about the photo as there appears to be false info floating around the web about it. Presumably we'll get the truth, or Al's version anyway, in the Ethics Hearing.

So, as TheStig said: In summary, don't cut corners. Do it the hard way because it is the best way.

Yep. Get it all out there.

You know what else I would like? The NAMES of the currently active harassers on the Hill: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/politics/sexual-harassment-congress/index.html?sr=twCNN111417sexual-harassment-congress0928AMVODtop

If you get all that, then why make inappropriate remarks in the first place? Yeah, I am a dude. Aren't men just as responsible if not more so to speak out against such behavior?

Yeah, I get all that but I expected to hear it from a dudette, not another dude. Or am I jumping to unjustified conclusions?

Man, I know you are perhaps trying to make a joke and lighten the mood, and that is being charitable, but that's not really even funny dude, on what is such a sensitive, critical, serious and important topic that impacts so many women so severely.

"The decline of America accelerates ..."

How so? In what way? Because of this issue finally being brought into the light and dealt with after so many years?

I think, depending on the outcome, this can only be a good thing for America and will make it a better place. We have front row seats to a rare occurrence, namely a cultural sea change taking place before our very eyes.

The decline only comes if it leads to consequences being apportioned out based on partisan political and right wing vs left wing culture war considerations only, and not on true justice for everyone.

If it leads to all such behavior by anyone, in the mold of the likes of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and Roy Moore and Al Franken, being held to account, and prevents any future like minded Presidents, candidates, or public figures, or entertainers, or just regular Joes in the street, being given a pass and from being seen as "acceptable" in any way, then we will have made true progress.

Whereas we Republicans, such as I and the Moron-in-
Chief, are such handsome devils that the women we molest not only do not complain, they keep coming back for more of the same!

How could it be more obvious??

Roger Stone — longtime confidant to President Donald Trump and GOP “dirty tricks” operative — appears to have had foreknowledge of the accusations against Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) by Los Angeles radio personality Leeann Tweeden.

At 1:30 a.m. Thursday, a Twitter account associated with Stone named "Enter the Stone Zone" tweeted:

QUOTE: Roger Stone says it's Al Franken's "time in the barrel". Franken next in long list of Democrats to be accused of "grabby" behavior.

That was posted several hours before Tweeden went public with her accusation.

Stone himself has been banned from Twitter, but apparently gets messages on through accounts like "Enter the Stone Zone".

The term "time in the barrel" is the same thing Stone said about John Podesta shortly before Wikileaks posted Podesta's stolen emails online.

Does anyone here still think that I'm being overly-suspicious about this story?

Once More Into the Clinton Circle of Hell

If by that you mean that he 'admits' that the prank photo with Leann Tweeden playing the role of 'pranked' was in bad taste, you're right to that extent. But even in his lengthier apology letter, he does not say that Tweeden's version of the 'rehearsal kiss' was true.

He says (in the longer of the two statements that he released), While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.

That's probably the nicest way to say that someone's lying that I've ever read.

We have good reason to take Tweeden's statement with a grain of salt. She's appeared on Fox News as a political commentator since 2005, a year before the alleged USO incident occurred. Since then, she's racked up sixteen appearances on Hannity's show alone, according to IMDB.

In her statement (which I linked to in post [16] in yesterday's column) she states, "I wanted to shout my story to the world with a megaphone to anyone who would listen, but even as angry as I was, I was worried about the potential backlash and damage going public might have on my career as a broadcaster."

Really? She was worried about backlash on Fox News? Was she worried that her tawdry story about a stolen kiss and inappropriate pic wouldn't go over well with Hannity. Maybe Ailes and O'Reilly wouldn't be happy to see her accusing a Democratic star of groping her. As a result, she says, despite being among literally the most receptive crowd for her story on the planet for the last ten plus years, and in possession of photo evidence to boot, she waited until today to make the story public.

Maybe it's just me, but I smell a rat. Call it 'moral relativism' all you want, but I reserve the right to suspect everything that stems from the dank ooze of Fox News, double when it's a friend of Hannity's, and triple when the timing is this convenient.

CNN spoke with more than 50 lawmakers, current and former Hill aides and political veterans who have worked in Congress, the majority of whom spoke anonymously to be candid and avoid potential repercussions. With few exceptions, every person said they have personally experienced sexual harassment on the Hill or know of others who have. [...]

More than half a dozen interviewees independently named one California congressman for pursuing female staffers; another half dozen pointed to a Texas congressman for engaging in inappropriate behavior. CNN is not naming either of those lawmakers because the stories are unverified.

I want to hear about ALL OF THEM.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/14/1715550/-Congress-is-a-cesspit-of-sexual-harassment-dozens-of-lawmakers-and-aides-say

As we write, McConnell is trying to find a way to postpone the election in Alabama to try to save it for the GOP. I don't want "gestures" from Dems done in efforts to achieve moral perfection. Those gestures don't protect us from the collective predator that is the GOP. The GOP DOES NOT RESPOND to Dems "doing the right thing" by, in turn, "doing the right thing". They just say "thanks for helping us out, suckers!"

I think Al Franken did the right thing by acknowledging, apologizing, and agreeing/calling for an ethics investigation.

In the coming days we will see if more accusers come forward -- that's what establishes the patterns of bad behaviors that amount to predation/harassment. The accuser in this case has publicly accepted his apology, which matters, I think. I had just read his most recent book where he writes about stuff going on during his SNL days and saying that for awhile he was an asshole, and that could mean anything. If there are a bunch of women whom he harassed out there, they'll come forward. And if they don't, that means something too -- "being an asshole" covers a lot of territory.

Whatever happens, I think we need to establish some ground rules and procedures because he isn't going to be the last. Of equal importance, right now the political stakes are really high and the GOP has a long history of dirty tricks so I would not put it past them to gin up some accusations. I've been worried they would, and on that basis I think investigations need to happen RATHER THAN pols like Al being martyrs and stepping down if they're not guilty or if their behaviors are in a grey zone. Collectively we have to decide what the grey zone includes and what falls outside it.

Al is willing to be scrutinized so lets do it and then draw our conclusions.