Franken renounced comedy when he became a senator. The idea was that he needed people to know they could take his words seriously, and not suspect he was joking, if he was in politics.
Problem solved ;-)
Seriously though, of course he should go. Had he reached out to her (pun!) before the news broke and apologized for his past behavior it would be a different story. RIP Al Franken’s political career. Jackass.
Edit! I wonder if there will be a proactive apology wave coming. That would be great.
I would say yes - if this was a one-off incident. He's said he made a bad misjudgment about what was funny and I imagine most of us have done that. If, however, this incident was part of a wider pattern (as has obviously been the case with some of the people in the news recently) that would be a different issue.
Given the current climate I imagine if there are women out there holding a grudge against Franken they are likely to come forward now. The Old Vic theatre in London just did an investigation of Kevin Spacey's time as the artistic director - and found 20 men providing testimony of inappropriate behavior.
"all of us" -> tries to distribute the blame, made worse in connection with the "especially men who respect women" thing. "don't remember the rehearsal as Leeann" -> feels the "can't remember" claims from Session. Either admit or deny.
I think the best apologies are simple, and should be in the vein of "What I did was wrong, I am deeply sorry and will take consequence X". Everything else feels like trying to justify yourself.
@DreadKhan I don't see how this is similar, as both Israeli and Palestina have historical claims to these lands, whereas the Europeans didn't when they invaded the Americas.
Frankly, I find the oppressors v.s the oppressed narrative too simplified. These lands are occupied by other minorities; it's not just Israeli vs Palestinians. If you look at the population statistics, these minorities remain more or less constant on the Israeli side, whereas for example the christian minority is shrinking on the Palestinian side. There have been some troubling reports of persecution on their side. But this doesn't agree with the "oppressed" narrative and so isn't getting mainstream coverage.
What claim to a bunch of Europeans have to already occupied land? I don't accept that foreign Israelis had any claim or right to land whstsoever. And regarding European's claim, there were Vikings that previously settled in NA. About as valid imho, but I know thats not s popular position. Technically, Euros had previously lived at some point in NA after all. Note that one of Israel's staunchest defenders is the USA, a country that gained a heap of land by literally murdering the previous inhabitants, until those people were living on impoverished 'reserves', which is roughly what Gaza is.
If you still don't like the USA comparison, then how about China's conquest of Tibet?
Those minorities generally have more rights and opportunities than Palestinians though, and are you going to bite the hand that feeds so to speak? If they were displaced like the Palestinians, that might change how they feel.
@semiticgod Erm, would you be particularly cooperative with Israel if they took your house, then 50 years later after much fighting agreed to give you a walk in closet to live in?? Thats how I see it, so I would argue that Israel is not acting in good faith with its compromises. Are they better than nothing and a concrete step in the right direction? Yes, they are, its just that it feels like the first steps of a marathon.
Its a lot to ask Israel I know, but they have all the power at the moment, so the ball is in their possession. It'll boil down I think to the majority in Israel that want peace and good relations voting in moderates for years, and will likely require evicting many Israeli settlers in disputed land, but I believe peace could happen.
"All of us", my foot. *I* haven't committed any sexual assaults so don't put me in that category, Senator. As for as nominating only female candidates in concerned, that causes another problem--is the female being nominated earning the nomination because she is the best candidate or because she is female? If the former then that is fine and I hope the campaign goes well; if the latter then there is a problem because at that point you are merely pandering.
Like I said, though, if every politician guilty of something were to step down we wouldn't have that many of them left. That really wouldn't be a bad idea, though, now that I think about it some more.
*************
Spin a globe then stop it on any random country. The people living in that place now are the descendants of people who took that land by murdering those who were already there back when those ancestors first arrived. Every nation's history is dripping with blood--no one is unique in that regard and no single nation's past atrocities are worse than any other nation's.
Franken should step down. Shame, he's been one of the better Senators. But that photo is completely damming and the reported action is completely unacceptable.
Personally, I really don't like when people mess around with other people when they're sleeping. It's so childish, like people who draw on other people when they are passed out drunk.
1. Did you really never do anything that would be sexual harassment when you were a teen?? I know I did, and I was a very well behaved introvert back then. I never did anything of real note, but I know I crossed lines. 2. So, because we've been pieces of **** through most of human history countries should still be allowed conquer whatever they want?? Also, the usual conquest in Europe would install new overlords, not wipe out the old population like was done in North America. Saxons, Danes and Britons all survived conquest, many of them multiple conquests, and in the case of the britons they survived despite a history of being restive. Their overlords let them live and work and breed new britons. 3. If you are cool with conquest, whereabouts do you live? I could use some money and I'm fairly big, so I coyld just shake you down every so often...
Also, what about Iceland, who did their ancestors displace violently??
@semiticgod Erm, would you be particularly cooperative with Israel if they took your house, then 50 years later after much fighting agreed to give you a walk in closet to live in??
No, I'd be pissed off. But my contention earlier was that fighting Israel has not worked. I can understand why the Palestinians want to change the situation; I just don't understand why they would believe that fighting Israel could possibly accomplish that.
Franken should step down. Shame, he's been one of the better Senators. But that photo is completely damming and the reported action is completely unacceptable.
Personally, I really don't like when people mess around with other people when they're sleeping. It's so childish, like people who draw on other people when they are passed out drunk.
Childish is a very good description of this behaviour. I do think many men (not all @Mathsorcerer) are guilty of behaviour similar to this in our teens to early 20's. Most of the time it's just talk amongst friends though. 'So and so is hot! I'd sure like to take her for a spin! Blah, blah, boobies!, etc...', kind of like Beevis & Butthead. The difference here is the power and money to take it beyond mere words.
The water is even more muddied by the simple fact that many females are attracted to money and power, giving these 'children' the idea that ALL women condone this behaviour. I guess they're finding out the hard way that that ain't the truth!
1) No, I didn't. I never groped anyone, made lewd comments about some girl's body parts, and I never joked or bragged about "conquests". I was really good at flirting and double entendre but those aren't normally considered "harassment" unless someone is really sensitive.
2) I wasn't excusing past behavior or giving anyone permission to conquer anyone else. I was only noting that trying to single out one country for its aggression is disingenuous since all nations are guilty of past transgressions.
3) That could be interpreted as a direct, personal threat.
4) Okay, maybe Iceland is an exception--I am sure there are one or two but in general my statement holds true.
Iceland was settled by Norsemen if I recall correctly. There was nobody there for the Norse to displace. However, Vikings aren't remembered for their knitting skills so if they had wanted to go out and conquer somebody it wouldn't have been their 'pacifist' nature stopping them. They just happened to find a little piece of paradise in the northern Atlantic!
When the history of the last 30 years of American politics is written, I don't think it's remotely fully-appreciated how good Barack Obama is going to look.
1. I think if we set the standard as high as 'must be groping' we're on the wrong track. Either way though sounds like you were a better man than I. I know I made mistakes, not on par with these stories but bad behaviour period is a problem. 2. I agree we have an ugly history, but some periods are abberant, such as Europeans dealing with Natives in their colonies. Europeans didn't consider these people human really, so they didn't wage war in a traditional manner. 3. No it can't, not fairly anyways. I'm within my rights to ask you to engage in consensual combat, which is up to a point perfectly legal in most countries. I did not even suggest any intent, which would be legally significant. That said, I did not intenf to make you uncomfortable, judt give you food for thought. Apollogies anyways. 4. Largely agreed.
@Balrog99 I would like to point out that the Vikings were better traders than conquerers, but thats not entirely accurate for all of their periods. The bigger impact on history is probably the large area they settled in peacefully (ish) than their period of raiding, having settled from Russia to Newfoundland. Also, Vikings were a bit propagandized by their enemies that had writing, the monks they raided. Eh, it sounds like I'm saying 'Not All Vikings', doesn't it?
Good lord is there ever a shift going on with these sexual assault reports. It'll be very interesting to see how the left addresses Franken et al vs the right on Moore et al. Prediction: the side that comes down harder on sex abuse will eventually come out ahead.
I'd agree on almost every point, except for one: if you are in fact the good guy, you do not in fact kill human shields. Just because human shields make it harder to kill your enemies doesn't mean you get to shoot them.
Killing civilians isn't okay, even if it is convenient.
Hamas is scum for using human shields. But Hamas being guilty of using human shields doesn't mean the human shields are guilty of being enemy combatants.
Put it this way: if you're at a bank when it gets robbed and the robbers use you as a human shield, how do you feel about the police shooting you?
The bank robbery is a different situation, it is isolated situation and not in a hostile area.
During the Operation Protective Edge the IDF entered the outskirts of Gaza in order to destroy Terror Tunnel openings which Hamas built, It was an active war-zone where RPG's were fired from houses, machine guns, snipers and bobby traps, suicide bombers, (Hamas blew up an UNRWA Medical clinic, killing 3 IDF soldiers). Now when a force is pinned down by a heavy fire, and have causalities, the first thing in his mind is to eliminate the threat, even at the price of civilian causalities (which are not suppose to be there in the first place, and the IDF actually WARNED the citizens to evacuate the area much time beforehand)
Another problematic situation is when a constant rocket launching is identified in one location, how do you handle it? you let it continue launching because there might be citizens there? you can't send a 'SWAT" team there, because again, it is highly hostile area, plus there is not a single source like this, but tens if not hundreds. Should Israel risk its own citizens in-order to save the citizens of its enemies?
Erm, would you be particularly cooperative with Israel if they took your house, then 50 years later after much fighting agreed to give you a walk in closet to live in??
What claim to a bunch of Europeans have to already occupied land? I don't accept that foreign Israelis had any claim or right to land whstsoever.
Your framing is completely false. The Jews who founded Israel weren't "foreign", they lived there, and had every right to live there.
Before modern Jewish immigration began in the second half of the 19th century, the region of Palestine (a part of the Ottoman Empire) was mostly empty. The small population that did live there, was composed like so:
A tiny number of Jewish families (the so-called "Old Jews"), who had remained there since the times of ancient Israel (before the Ottoman Empire existed), almost all living in Jerusalem.
A small number of Arab tribes, who had immigrated into the Ottoman Empire in the last few centuries, in different villages with lots and lots of inhospitable desert and swamp in between and around them.
The modern Jews immigrated legally (following the laws of the Ottoman Empire), and peacefully - buying land or settling previously unclaimed land.
They brought entrepreneurial spirit and built hospitals and roads and industry, which caused the previously sleepy desert region to boom - which also benefited the Arab inhabitants, who experienced a sharp drop in child mortality and the start of exponential population growth. This boom also attracted many Arabs from other parts of the Middle East, that were still much poorer and less developed, to immigrate into the region of Palestine.
So, fast forward past the break-out of mutual hostilities, the rise and fall of Pan-Arab-Nationalism that left behind the Arabs of this one region as the only ones without a state, the rise of Islamism, terrorism, failed UN mediation - to the founding of modern Israel in 1948. By then, the population of the contested region of Palestine was composed roughly like so:
The tiny number of "Old Jews", who were living there since long before any of the other groups.
A large number of Arabs who had legally immigrated in the previous few centuries.
A smaller number of Jews who had legally immigrated in the last century.
A large number of Arabs who has legally immigrated in the last century.
Before the civil war, 1 and 3 together were known as the "Palestinian Jews", and 2 and 4 together as the "Palestinian Arabs". ("Palestine" was a neutral name for the geographical region, not signifying any particular people or ethnicity.)
There was no Arab nation of Palestine (ever), and no European invasion.
The Arab inhabitants of the region had no legitimate moral, legal, or historic claim to exclusive "ownership" of the whole region. Their attempt to claim it anyway, by going to war with the express purpose of driving out the Jews, was a completely unjustified (and thankfully unsuccessful) endeavor.
Their going "all in" on attempted genocide and Arab Supremacy (over time enriched with Islamism), and doubling down on it at any opportunity since then, is the main cause of the poor situation they find themselves in today.
And unfortunately, the racist idea of Arab ethnic "ownership" of the region still forms the moral core of the global "Antizionist" movement today, backed up with polemical historic revisionism like the one in the quoted posts.
The rationalization that on average, the Arabs immigrated earlier, is no less justified than it is when White Nationalists in the US don pointy robes and light torches and demand the expulsion of, say, Hispanic or Asian Americans who on average immigrated later than them.
The pernicious polemical ploy of calling more recent legal immigrants "invaders", is equally disgusting in both cases.
In any case, after the civil war, groups 1 + 3 + the portion of 2 + 4 who ended up on the Israeli side of the cease-fire line, became "Israelis". And the remaining 2 + 4 began, in the decades afterwards, to adopt the previously neutral name of the region as a new, artificial ethnic descriptor for themselves: the "Palestinians". (A genious marketing move, in retrospect - as it has made it so much easier for ignorant people across the globe to believe they must be the rightful historic "owners" of the whole land.)
Yeah, that is my error--I totally cited the wrong person. It has been a stressful day here. My apologies to @Quickblade
@DreadKhan Now that I am referencing the correct person....
I mentioned "groping" because a lot of the news stories coming out lately involve inappropriate contact. I wasn't a saint as a teenager--underage drinking alcohol while driving a car (do NOT do this)--only that there were certain things I didn't do.
Uncomfortable? *laugh* No offense but no one here has the ability to make me uncomfortable. I just didn't want to see you get a warning from a mod.
I think @DreadKhan was referring to the occupied territories stolen in 1967. The Six Day War was a blatant example of Arab aggression (and a spectacular display of Israeli military superiority in the end), but Israel's takeover of those territories after the war was in fact illegal per international law. The Palestinians did not sell or voluntarily cede that land.
I don't blame the Israelis for their decisions in 1967; quite the opposite. But "steal" is the correct word for it under modern-day international law.
Before modern Jewish immigration began in the second half of the 19th century, the region of Palestine (a part of the Ottoman Empire) was mostly empty. The small population that did live there
That's exactly the problem. I personally don't make a distinction based on that history, but that's part of the Palestinian complaint: the Palestinians did live there, whereas the Jews had not lived there for centuries.
There are other reasons (good reasons) to say that the Arab-Israeli conflict is nothing like the wars between the colonists and Native Americans, but that is one similarity between the two: a foreign group entering a previously occupied land without the permission of the locals. It's not like the Palestinians said "okay" to Jewish immigrants in 1948 and then suddenly changed their minds.
At any rate, the founding of Israel is history as well as a fait accompli, just like the colonization of the Americas. Practically everyone alive in Israel today was born there and is therefore just as native as the Palestinians, regardless of whether their grandparents lived in Jerusalem or Sosnowiec.
I see no reason to make a distinction between two people who have lived in the same place all their life just because their long-dead ancestors did not.
So I guess with all the money they're going to be saving from the soon to be passed Tax Cuts for the rich they'll be able to kill some endangered animals for fun. Oh wait, they can totally already afford that.
2. Palestinians are at best an underclass with less rights and privileges. They are not valued even close to as highly as a jewish citizen is.
Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, therefore they have no rights in Israel. The Palestinians have an autonomy (PLO), and have their own government system, economy, ids, taxes and police.
An interesting thing is that the Palestinians in east Jerusalem DO have Israeli Ids, they get social services/social security, and since they are 40% of the total population of Jerusalem, technically there can be a Palestinian mayor to Jerusalem, but they choose not to invoke their rights.
More ever, 20% of the population of Israel is Israeli-Arabs, which have full and equal rights to any other Israel, they even get benefits because they are minority, and are easily accepted to Universities, sometimes even without taking the required entrance exams or passing the required bar.
Israel gets gobs of assistance from the international community, while Palestinians are disenfranchised and in poverty.
The only assistance from the international community is the US Military assistance ($3.8B/year), which with that money can by Military equipment from American Companies Only, which means more employment in the US and of course, taxes. Israel doesn't really need this assistance, since its barley 2% of its budget. But by this assistance the US benefits both more jobs, and a point of pressure on Israel.
On the other hand, the Palestinians receive non-stop assistance from the international community, the Palestinian Authority yearly budget ($3B/year) is based on international assistance, including from the the US, EU, and Arabs states.
The Hamas, which controls Gaza, gets its assistance from countries like Qatar and Iran. The whole situation in 2014 was because of money, The PLO stopped transferring money to the Hamas men in Gaza, as part of internal Palestinian conflict (The Gaza and the West Bank are controlled by two different entities, the Fatah(West Bank) and Hamas(Gaza strip)), and Hamas provoked Israel in order to get money from other counties (which he spend on arming itself and its tunnels project)
The problem is that the International money doesn't reach to the 'average joe' Plaestinian is because the PLO are CORRUPT. Don't you wonder how the former Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, was a Billionaire?
The Israelis have the power to push for peace imho due to having all the power, specifically because there is little the Palestinians can do that matters. With so little international censure/pressure I doubt they'll bother, as Israel won't even stop spreading settlements in other people's land. If Israel presently would learn compassion, there could be peace imo.
The Conflict is complicated, too many interests and demands. If it was depend only on the Israeli side, it would have been solve years ago. Israel has given away entire Sinai peninsula, which was Third of its size, in favor for a peace treaty with Egypt.
The key issues that usually stops any negotiation with the Palestinians, are the settlements of course on the Israeli side (which can be solved by land swap), and the Palestinian demand for the "Right of Return", meaning that millions of Palestinians from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will return Israel (i.e end of Israel).
Personally, I'm not anywhere near as confident that Israel would still have as big of an advantage vs neighbouring countries in a war today... They certainly did well enough in the past, but if I were Israel I would be much more interested in trying to cooperate with my neighbours.
Israel has Peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, also Israel behind the curtains it also collaborating constantly with other Sunni countries such as the United Emirate and Saudi-Arabia, which the common ground is of course the hostility of Iran and their spread in the middle-easy (Iraq, Syria and Lebanon)
In my opinion putting upon yourself to decide who is "foreign" in a land that has been historically the home of many ethnicities, including Jewish and Arab, is yet another facet of neo-colonialism.
There's also an additional aspect which makes such ethnicity-based land claims irrational:
Lets assume that an ethnic majority at some point in history did bestow a kind of sacred inalienable ownership of "the land" to the people of future generations who happen to share that ethnicity (it doesn't).
Lets further assume that one could impartially pick a specific time in history to use as the reference date for this determination (one can't).
Then one would still be left with an important question: How far, exactly, does "the land" extend? The particular villages that the people of said ethnicity inhabited at said reference date? The villages plus a radius of 100 miles in all directions? The implicitly assumed answer generally seems to be: Going outward from to villages in question, up until the nearest line that - through sheer historical coincidence - happens to be a national boundary today. But that's really arbitrary.
The Palestinians, in particular, have been very shrewd in re-adjusting the bounds of their historic land claim as politically expedient. After the surrounding Arab nations occupied the territories on the other side of the cease-fire line at the end of the 1948/49 civil war, there were no attempts to establish a "Palestinian state" on those parts of the region of Palestine. The Palestinian leadership of the time specifically defined the "homeland" they were fighting for, to be that occupied by Israel at the time. Of course, this changed when Israel captured some of those areas later, and again when Israel relinquished some of them again. At any given time, the "sacred homeland" claimed by the Palestinians seems to correspond exactly to the land currently under Israel's influence...
I think @DreadKhan was referring to the occupied territories stolen in 1967. The Six Day War was a blatant example of Arab aggression (and a spectacular display of Israeli military superiority in the end), but Israel's takeover of those territories after the war was in fact illegal per international law. The Palestinians did not sell or voluntarily cede that land.
I don't blame the Israelis for their decisions in 1967; quite the opposite. But "steal" is the correct word for it under modern-day international law.
You're right, there's no legal provision in modern International law that allows nations to capture new territory after a war (like Israel did with Sinai + West Bank + Gaza + East Jerusalem + Golan in 1967, and almost every other nation has done at some point), even when it was a defensive war and preventing enemy control of the territories is considered a matter of survival.
Was Israel right in considering that a matter of self-defense and survival, and going ahead with it? I don't know. It's a really complicated question, and different historians make strong arguments for and against.
But note that Israel didn't capture those territories from "the Palestinians", it captured them from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, who officially occupied them until that point and had themselves captured at least part of them with just as little legal basis in 1949. So @DreadKhan's analogy still doesn't hold up.
That's exactly the problem. I personally don't make a distinction based on that history, but that's part of the Palestinian complaint: the Palestinians did live there
Many of them didn't (group 4 in my post in question).
But note that Israel didn't capture those territories from "the Palestinians", it captured them from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, who officially occupied them until that point and had themselves captured at least part of them with just as little legal basis in 1949. So @DreadKhan's analogy still doesn't hold up.
True. But the idea here is not to prove DreadKhan or any other user wrong; we're not here to "win" the debate.
Was Israel right in considering that a matter of self-defense and survival, and going ahead with it? I don't know. It's a really complicated question, and different historians make strong arguments for and against.
I think the Israelis made the right decision given the information they had at the time. In retrospect, though, taking the occupied territories have caused more problems than they solved. Taking the Sinai Peninsula got them peace with Egypt, which effectively neutralized the existential threat to Israel*, but when the Arab states more or less abandoned the Palestinians and refused to accept Palestinian refugees, Israel was stuck with a massive population of resentful Muslims with no one else willing to deal with them.
And, realizing that Israel had won such an incredibly decisive victory and held all the bargaining chips, the Palestinians held off on negotiations, knowing that they couldn't actually get anything at the table because they had nothing to offer the Israelis that the Israelis did not already possess. Except that attitude persisted indefinitely, even after it should have become clear that, if the Palestinians did not reach an agreement with Israel, Israel would simply act without Palestinian input.
Israel probably could have avoided much of the conflict of the last several decades by unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state and handing over all the keys to the Palestinians once they had a peace treaty with Egypt. But I don't think anyone could have foreseen at the time that that was a good idea--they had just barely escaped total destruction** and magnanimity to your old enemies is not something you think about when you almost get wiped out.
*Without Egypt, the Arab states simply did not have the power to pose a credible threat to Israel's existence, though Iran would become such a threat if they gained nuclear weapons.
**Israel survived in the war by launching a blitzkrieg air attack, neutralizing the Arab air forces and leaving their armies without air support. They took the Arabs by surprise, but if the Arabs had realized what was going on, they could have attacked Israel and wiped it out, because the Israeli air force had left the country basically defenseless. Luckily, the Arab states didn't see that opportunity and the result was a crushing Israeli victory.
Franken's accuser has said she accepts his apology, believes it is heartfelt, and is not asking for his resignation. Barring any further allegations of a similar kind (and if recent history tells us anything, if it was a pattern, there will be a flood of them) I am inclined to adhere to what both @ThacoBell and Tim Kaine both essentially said. If the accuser accepts the apology, I will also accept that. The thing is, people accused of this kind of conduct RARELY admit to it and apologize. Franken COULD have gone on the attack against his accuser like Donald Trump or Roy Moore, but he decided to take his medicine instead. And there is SOMETHING to be said for that in a society that is currently awash in powerful males denying similar allegations. Obviously, if more women tell the same story, he will have to go. If it is a one-off incident (big if) and the accuser is granting his absolution (in a sense), then I don't think it rises to the level of resignation. However, that could easily change.
That's how I see it. It was extremely dumb, childish, and sexist. If it was a one off thing and the victim accepts apology then great.
But I kind of doubt it was a one off thing, maybe it was. I dont think you start at that level and that's the only thing you do. It seems like that is the type of thing that's not the first step.
I still think he should quit, his career is effectively over with that picture regardless of how innocent things may have been meant to be.
Then again Trump has the Access Hollywood tape and he's still going... But then again, two wrongs don't make a right.
That's how I see it. It was extremely dumb, childish, and sexist. If it was a one off thing and the victim accepts apology then great.
But I kind of doubt it was a one off thing, maybe it was. I dont think you start at that level and that's the only thing you do. It seems like that is the type of thing that's not the first step.
I still think he should quit, his career is effectively over with that picture regardless of how "innocent" everything else is.
I hope it's the only incident like this, I don't know. I felt horrible when I saw this this morning. I like Al Franken, I always have. His second book gave me a vocabulary to argue with during the Bush years. I was saddened and disappointed to type out I thought he needed to resign. It was actually fairly difficult for me to do. I still reserve that right depending on if the story develops more. Based on the interview I saw of the accuser with Jake Tapper though, and based on the much better than usual apology, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
Franken's accuser has said she accepts his apology, believes it is heartfelt, and is not asking for his resignation. Barring any further allegations of a similar kind (and if recent history tells us anything, if it was a pattern, there will be a flood of them) I am inclined to adhere to what both @ThacoBell and Tim Kaine both essentially said. If the accuser accepts the apology, I will also accept that. The thing is, people accused of this kind of conduct RARELY admit to it and apologize. Franken COULD have gone on the attack against his accuser like Donald Trump or Roy Moore, but he decided to take his medicine instead. And there is SOMETHING to be said for that in a society that is currently awash in powerful males denying similar allegations. Obviously, if more women tell the same story, he will have to go. If it is a one-off incident (big if) and the accuser is granting his absolution (in a sense), then I don't think it rises to the level of resignation. However, that could easily change.
Well the people of Minnesota still get a say in the matter.
Comments
Seriously though, of course he should go. Had he reached out to her (pun!) before the news broke and apologized for his past behavior it would be a different story. RIP Al Franken’s political career. Jackass.
Edit! I wonder if there will be a proactive apology wave coming. That would be great.
As apologies go, this is far more contrite than most. Honest question: is this sufficent??
Given the current climate I imagine if there are women out there holding a grudge against Franken they are likely to come forward now. The Old Vic theatre in London just did an investigation of Kevin Spacey's time as the artistic director - and found 20 men providing testimony of inappropriate behavior.
Here are my personal impressions:
"all of us" -> tries to distribute the blame, made worse in connection with the "especially men who respect women" thing.
"don't remember the rehearsal as Leeann" -> feels the "can't remember" claims from Session. Either admit or deny.
I think the best apologies are simple, and should be in the vein of "What I did was wrong, I am deeply sorry and will take consequence X". Everything else feels like trying to justify yourself.
If you still don't like the USA comparison, then how about China's conquest of Tibet?
Those minorities generally have more rights and opportunities than Palestinians though, and are you going to bite the hand that feeds so to speak? If they were displaced like the Palestinians, that might change how they feel.
@semiticgod Erm, would you be particularly cooperative with Israel if they took your house, then 50 years later after much fighting agreed to give you a walk in closet to live in?? Thats how I see it, so I would argue that Israel is not acting in good faith with its compromises. Are they better than nothing and a concrete step in the right direction? Yes, they are, its just that it feels like the first steps of a marathon.
Its a lot to ask Israel I know, but they have all the power at the moment, so the ball is in their possession. It'll boil down I think to the majority in Israel that want peace and good relations voting in moderates for years, and will likely require evicting many Israeli settlers in disputed land, but I believe peace could happen.
Like I said, though, if every politician guilty of something were to step down we wouldn't have that many of them left. That really wouldn't be a bad idea, though, now that I think about it some more.
*************
Spin a globe then stop it on any random country. The people living in that place now are the descendants of people who took that land by murdering those who were already there back when those ancestors first arrived. Every nation's history is dripping with blood--no one is unique in that regard and no single nation's past atrocities are worse than any other nation's.
Personally, I really don't like when people mess around with other people when they're sleeping. It's so childish, like people who draw on other people when they are passed out drunk.
1. Did you really never do anything that would be sexual harassment when you were a teen?? I know I did, and I was a very well behaved introvert back then. I never did anything of real note, but I know I crossed lines.
2. So, because we've been pieces of **** through most of human history countries should still be allowed conquer whatever they want?? Also, the usual conquest in Europe would install new overlords, not wipe out the old population like was done in North America. Saxons, Danes and Britons all survived conquest, many of them multiple conquests, and in the case of the britons they survived despite a history of being restive. Their overlords let them live and work and breed new britons.
3. If you are cool with conquest, whereabouts do you live? I could use some money and I'm fairly big, so I coyld just shake you down every so often...
Also, what about Iceland, who did their ancestors displace violently??
The water is even more muddied by the simple fact that many females are attracted to money and power, giving these 'children' the idea that ALL women condone this behaviour. I guess they're finding out the hard way that that ain't the truth!
1) No, I didn't. I never groped anyone, made lewd comments about some girl's body parts, and I never joked or bragged about "conquests". I was really good at flirting and double entendre but those aren't normally considered "harassment" unless someone is really sensitive.
2) I wasn't excusing past behavior or giving anyone permission to conquer anyone else. I was only noting that trying to single out one country for its aggression is disingenuous since all nations are guilty of past transgressions.
3) That could be interpreted as a direct, personal threat.
4) Okay, maybe Iceland is an exception--I am sure there are one or two but in general my statement holds true.
When the history of the last 30 years of American politics is written, I don't think it's remotely fully-appreciated how good Barack Obama is going to look.
2. I agree we have an ugly history, but some periods are abberant, such as Europeans dealing with Natives in their colonies. Europeans didn't consider these people human really, so they didn't wage war in a traditional manner.
3. No it can't, not fairly anyways. I'm within my rights to ask you to engage in consensual combat, which is up to a point perfectly legal in most countries. I did not even suggest any intent, which would be legally significant. That said, I did not intenf to make you uncomfortable, judt give you food for thought. Apollogies anyways.
4. Largely agreed.
@Balrog99 I would like to point out that the Vikings were better traders than conquerers, but thats not entirely accurate for all of their periods. The bigger impact on history is probably the large area they settled in peacefully (ish) than their period of raiding, having settled from Russia to Newfoundland. Also, Vikings were a bit propagandized by their enemies that had writing, the monks they raided. Eh, it sounds like I'm saying 'Not All Vikings', doesn't it?
Good lord is there ever a shift going on with these sexual assault reports. It'll be very interesting to see how the left addresses Franken et al vs the right on Moore et al. Prediction: the side that comes down harder on sex abuse will eventually come out ahead.
The bank robbery is a different situation, it is isolated situation and not in a hostile area.
During the Operation Protective Edge the IDF entered the outskirts of Gaza in order to destroy Terror Tunnel openings which Hamas built, It was an active war-zone where RPG's were fired from houses, machine guns, snipers and bobby traps, suicide bombers, (Hamas blew up an UNRWA Medical clinic, killing 3 IDF soldiers). Now when a force is pinned down by a heavy fire, and have causalities, the first thing in his mind is to eliminate the threat, even at the price of civilian causalities (which are not suppose to be there in the first place, and the IDF actually WARNED the citizens to evacuate the area much time beforehand)
Another problematic situation is when a constant rocket launching is identified in one location, how do you handle it? you let it continue launching because there might be citizens there? you can't send a 'SWAT" team there, because again, it is highly hostile area, plus there is not a single source like this, but tens if not hundreds. Should Israel risk its own citizens in-order to save the citizens of its enemies?
Before modern Jewish immigration began in the second half of the 19th century, the region of Palestine (a part of the Ottoman Empire) was mostly empty. The small population that did live there, was composed like so:
- A tiny number of Jewish families (the so-called "Old Jews"), who had remained there since the times of ancient Israel (before the Ottoman Empire existed), almost all living in Jerusalem.
- A small number of Arab tribes, who had immigrated into the Ottoman Empire in the last few centuries, in different villages with lots and lots of inhospitable desert and swamp in between and around them.
The modern Jews immigrated legally (following the laws of the Ottoman Empire), and peacefully - buying land or settling previously unclaimed land.They brought entrepreneurial spirit and built hospitals and roads and industry, which caused the previously sleepy desert region to boom - which also benefited the Arab inhabitants, who experienced a sharp drop in child mortality and the start of exponential population growth. This boom also attracted many Arabs from other parts of the Middle East, that were still much poorer and less developed, to immigrate into the region of Palestine.
So, fast forward past the break-out of mutual hostilities, the rise and fall of Pan-Arab-Nationalism that left behind the Arabs of this one region as the only ones without a state, the rise of Islamism, terrorism, failed UN mediation - to the founding of modern Israel in 1948. By then, the population of the contested region of Palestine was composed roughly like so:
- The tiny number of "Old Jews", who were living there since long before any of the other groups.
- A large number of Arabs who had legally immigrated in the previous few centuries.
- A smaller number of Jews who had legally immigrated in the last century.
- A large number of Arabs who has legally immigrated in the last century.
Before the civil war, 1 and 3 together were known as the "Palestinian Jews", and 2 and 4 together as the "Palestinian Arabs". ("Palestine" was a neutral name for the geographical region, not signifying any particular people or ethnicity.)There was no Arab nation of Palestine (ever), and no European invasion.
The Arab inhabitants of the region had no legitimate moral, legal, or historic claim to exclusive "ownership" of the whole region. Their attempt to claim it anyway, by going to war with the express purpose of driving out the Jews, was a completely unjustified (and thankfully unsuccessful) endeavor.
Their going "all in" on attempted genocide and Arab Supremacy (over time enriched with Islamism), and doubling down on it at any opportunity since then, is the main cause of the poor situation they find themselves in today.
And unfortunately, the racist idea of Arab ethnic "ownership" of the region still forms the moral core of the global "Antizionist" movement today, backed up with polemical historic revisionism like the one in the quoted posts.
The rationalization that on average, the Arabs immigrated earlier, is no less justified than it is when White Nationalists in the US don pointy robes and light torches and demand the expulsion of, say, Hispanic or Asian Americans who on average immigrated later than them.
The pernicious polemical ploy of calling more recent legal immigrants "invaders", is equally disgusting in both cases.
In any case, after the civil war, groups 1 + 3 + the portion of 2 + 4 who ended up on the Israeli side of the cease-fire line, became "Israelis".
And the remaining 2 + 4 began, in the decades afterwards, to adopt the previously neutral name of the region as a new, artificial ethnic descriptor for themselves: the "Palestinians". (A genious marketing move, in retrospect - as it has made it so much easier for ignorant people across the globe to believe they must be the rightful historic "owners" of the whole land.)
@DreadKhan Now that I am referencing the correct person....
I mentioned "groping" because a lot of the news stories coming out lately involve inappropriate contact. I wasn't a saint as a teenager--underage drinking alcohol while driving a car (do NOT do this)--only that there were certain things I didn't do.
Uncomfortable? *laugh* No offense but no one here has the ability to make me uncomfortable. I just didn't want to see you get a warning from a mod.
I don't blame the Israelis for their decisions in 1967; quite the opposite. But "steal" is the correct word for it under modern-day international law. That's exactly the problem. I personally don't make a distinction based on that history, but that's part of the Palestinian complaint: the Palestinians did live there, whereas the Jews had not lived there for centuries.
There are other reasons (good reasons) to say that the Arab-Israeli conflict is nothing like the wars between the colonists and Native Americans, but that is one similarity between the two: a foreign group entering a previously occupied land without the permission of the locals. It's not like the Palestinians said "okay" to Jewish immigrants in 1948 and then suddenly changed their minds.
At any rate, the founding of Israel is history as well as a fait accompli, just like the colonization of the Americas. Practically everyone alive in Israel today was born there and is therefore just as native as the Palestinians, regardless of whether their grandparents lived in Jerusalem or Sosnowiec.
I see no reason to make a distinction between two people who have lived in the same place all their life just because their long-dead ancestors did not.
They have said its OK to import lions and elephants killed for sport in Africa again.
https://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2017/11/targeting-elephants-interior-department-puts-african-lions-crosshairs.html
So I guess with all the money they're going to be saving from the soon to be passed Tax Cuts for the rich they'll be able to kill some endangered animals for fun. Oh wait, they can totally already afford that.
An interesting thing is that the Palestinians in east Jerusalem DO have Israeli Ids, they get social services/social security, and since they are 40% of the total population of Jerusalem, technically there can be a Palestinian mayor to Jerusalem, but they choose not to invoke their rights.
More ever, 20% of the population of Israel is Israeli-Arabs, which have full and equal rights to any other Israel, they even get benefits because they are minority, and are easily accepted to Universities, sometimes even without taking the required entrance exams or passing the required bar. The only assistance from the international community is the US Military assistance ($3.8B/year), which with that money can by Military equipment from American Companies Only, which means more employment in the US and of course, taxes. Israel doesn't really need this assistance, since its barley 2% of its budget. But by this assistance the US benefits both more jobs, and a point of pressure on Israel.
On the other hand, the Palestinians receive non-stop assistance from the international community, the Palestinian Authority yearly budget ($3B/year) is based on international assistance, including from the the US, EU, and Arabs states.
The Hamas, which controls Gaza, gets its assistance from countries like Qatar and Iran. The whole situation in 2014 was because of money, The PLO stopped transferring money to the Hamas men in Gaza, as part of internal Palestinian conflict (The Gaza and the West Bank are controlled by two different entities, the Fatah(West Bank) and Hamas(Gaza strip)), and Hamas provoked Israel in order to get money from other counties (which he spend on arming itself and its tunnels project)
The problem is that the International money doesn't reach to the 'average joe' Plaestinian is because the PLO are CORRUPT. Don't you wonder how the former Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, was a Billionaire?
See also Report: Billions of Dollars of Aid to Palestinian Authority Lost to Corruption
And shall I start talking about UNWRA?
The Conflict is complicated, too many interests and demands. If it was depend only on the Israeli side, it would have been solve years ago. Israel has given away entire Sinai peninsula, which was Third of its size, in favor for a peace treaty with Egypt.
The key issues that usually stops any negotiation with the Palestinians, are the settlements of course on the Israeli side (which can be solved by land swap), and the Palestinian demand for the "Right of Return", meaning that millions of Palestinians from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will return Israel (i.e end of Israel).
Israel has Peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, also Israel behind the curtains it also collaborating constantly with other Sunni countries such as the United Emirate and Saudi-Arabia, which the common ground is of course the hostility of Iran and their spread in the middle-easy (Iraq, Syria and Lebanon)
Lets assume that an ethnic majority at some point in history did bestow a kind of sacred inalienable ownership of "the land" to the people of future generations who happen to share that ethnicity (it doesn't).
Lets further assume that one could impartially pick a specific time in history to use as the reference date for this determination (one can't).
Then one would still be left with an important question: How far, exactly, does "the land" extend?
The particular villages that the people of said ethnicity inhabited at said reference date?
The villages plus a radius of 100 miles in all directions?
The implicitly assumed answer generally seems to be: Going outward from to villages in question, up until the nearest line that - through sheer historical coincidence - happens to be a national boundary today. But that's really arbitrary.
The Palestinians, in particular, have been very shrewd in re-adjusting the bounds of their historic land claim as politically expedient. After the surrounding Arab nations occupied the territories on the other side of the cease-fire line at the end of the 1948/49 civil war, there were no attempts to establish a "Palestinian state" on those parts of the region of Palestine. The Palestinian leadership of the time specifically defined the "homeland" they were fighting for, to be that occupied by Israel at the time. Of course, this changed when Israel captured some of those areas later, and again when Israel relinquished some of them again. At any given time, the "sacred homeland" claimed by the Palestinians seems to correspond exactly to the land currently under Israel's influence...
Was Israel right in considering that a matter of self-defense and survival, and going ahead with it? I don't know. It's a really complicated question, and different historians make strong arguments for and against.
But note that Israel didn't capture those territories from "the Palestinians", it captured them from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, who officially occupied them until that point and had themselves captured at least part of them with just as little legal basis in 1949. So @DreadKhan's analogy still doesn't hold up. Many of them didn't (group 4 in my post in question). A few of them had (group 1).
And, realizing that Israel had won such an incredibly decisive victory and held all the bargaining chips, the Palestinians held off on negotiations, knowing that they couldn't actually get anything at the table because they had nothing to offer the Israelis that the Israelis did not already possess. Except that attitude persisted indefinitely, even after it should have become clear that, if the Palestinians did not reach an agreement with Israel, Israel would simply act without Palestinian input.
Israel probably could have avoided much of the conflict of the last several decades by unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state and handing over all the keys to the Palestinians once they had a peace treaty with Egypt. But I don't think anyone could have foreseen at the time that that was a good idea--they had just barely escaped total destruction** and magnanimity to your old enemies is not something you think about when you almost get wiped out.
*Without Egypt, the Arab states simply did not have the power to pose a credible threat to Israel's existence, though Iran would become such a threat if they gained nuclear weapons.
**Israel survived in the war by launching a blitzkrieg air attack, neutralizing the Arab air forces and leaving their armies without air support. They took the Arabs by surprise, but if the Arabs had realized what was going on, they could have attacked Israel and wiped it out, because the Israeli air force had left the country basically defenseless. Luckily, the Arab states didn't see that opportunity and the result was a crushing Israeli victory.
But I kind of doubt it was a one off thing, maybe it was. I dont think you start at that level and that's the only thing you do. It seems like that is the type of thing that's not the first step.
I still think he should quit, his career is effectively over with that picture regardless of how innocent things may have been meant to be.
Then again Trump has the Access Hollywood tape and he's still going... But then again, two wrongs don't make a right.