With this rash of people claiming sexual assault etc, and others being fired , punished , etc based on only the accuser's word... Where do we go from here?
CNN Moore
CNN The List
Salon Women Do It Also
CNN Moore
CNN The List
Salon Women Do It Also
99 comments:
The witch hunt aspects are troubling, but calling something a witch hunt isn't a reason to dismiss the issue. It's all something of a pickle.
The case where it matters a lot at the moment is the Judge Roy Moore matter in Alabama. I wouldn't want to be quick to judge on the sexual matters (although Moore is clearly unfit to serve for other reasons), but the fact is, his denial of the accusations is neither complete nor convincing, which mostly explains his loss of Republican senatorial support.
--Hiram
Many of these guys seem to be rolling over without too much of a fight. So maybe they knew they were operating outside the normal rules.
I keep thinking though that some innocent drunken flirtatious guys are going to get caught in this hunt. And in the future many may just avoid making a pass at an attractive woman for fear that she will call him out...
Innocent until proven guilty only matters in court, where a person's rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
There is no right to run for elected office.
Moose
Well thankfully you apparently haven't gotten drunk and grabbed a woman's butt... Maybe a mans??? :-)
Now if you can think beyond your dislike for a certain GOP candidate... Is a woman or man's freedom to accuse some one more important than the accused's right to stay employed and earning a living?
How likely are fame seekers or money grubbers likely to make questionable claims for their own personal gain?
Or possibly to keep someone they really disagree with from attaining a political office?
In our incredibly politically correct and proper society setting up people for law suits?
Or are we giving the victimized a voice?
Or both?
It can be a tough decision, although not in Moore's case because he is unfit in so many other ways for office. On talk radio, Soucheray would frame this as a "where do you draw the line?", "how much is enough" question. Soucheray's response to that sort of question is simply to throw up his hands, go to a commercial, and cash his paycheck. Most of the rest of us don't have that luxury. We have to make choices. We have to act on information that's less than conclusive. We have to do what we do every day; make difficult decisions and move on.
--Hiram
Whatever happened to women shutting down these sorts of unwanted advances, all by themselves? "harassment" isn't a crime unless you are some weak-kneed snowflake of a woman, and I don't know very many of those. Really, is this what feminists want to project, that women are so helpless that she lets these things happen? Sure, sexual assault is something different, and a crime, but we still have to be careful of "he said, she said" situations because some women DO make up stories (off the top of my head, the Duke incident).
To me, this whole thing stinks of filthy political tricks. These things supposedly happened 40 years ago, when Moore was a Democrat, but only now, just before the election of Moore, the Republican, do these women come forward? Why not during the primary? Why not years ago? Is it because, as rumored, these women are being PAID to come forward?
Wow...that's a lot of mansplaining.
I'd rather hear from Laurie.
Moose
"Well thankfully you apparently haven't gotten drunk and grabbed a woman's butt.."
Why does being drunk let you off the hook if you're accused of sexual assault, but not if you're the victim? Once again, Appelen-World is more worried about the impacts on the perpetrators of assault, not the victims.
These women don't come forward because they're facing powerful men. Roy Moore was a district attorney when these allegations went down. Can you honestly say -- even today, much less back then -- that anyone making a claim of criminal behavior by a DA isn't facing a massive uphill fight?
It's the same reason no one challenged Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein for years. It's the same reason that the lobbyists complaining about the scumbags in the Minnesota Legislature don't want to give out their names. In a very real sense, they have a lot to lose as well, even if they're telling the gospel truth.
Sean,
Since I do have 3 very attractive daughters, I am very sensitive to the issue. However I pray I have taught my daughters to not be manipulated into some private inappropriate situation.
And if someone grabs their butt, I hope they have the confidence and attitude to straighten that individual out at that time. Not carry around some gripe for 30 years...
And finally if some older guy propositions them inappropriately, hopefully they have enough of a sense of humor to say "no thank you" with a smile.
Sean,
One more thing... What do you deem as "sexual assault"?
My guess is that your threshold is pretty low...
And how would you "flirt" with the other sex?
Do you want people to just talk until they agree to sign a legally binding consent form that allows them to touch each other?
How do you see eliminating communication errors?
Let's just say that some 18 year girls are impressed that a 30 yr old DA wants to spend time with them... And things get personal / physical...
How does one determine if it was a "sexual assault"?
Is what happened "illegal", just against "social norms" and/or immoral?
I find this whole topic fascinating...
A question just occurred to me...
Where are Moore's accusers Parents then?
Have they spoken up now?
"Let's just say that some 18 year girls are impressed..."
14
Moose
"...I hope they have the confidence and attitude to straighten that individual out at that time. " You should do more than hope; you should EXPECT it. And it should not matter who it is, these days we have laws against the most egregious such behavior to protect women even further. What we do NOT protect against is character assassination as political blood sport.
"Not carry around some gripe for 30 years..."
It's not the victim's fault. That's the fundamental issue here.
"What do you deem as "sexual assault"?"
The statutes define such behavior.
"And how would you "flirt" with the other sex?"
I guess I'm uncertain how "flirting" requires unwanted physical contact.
"How do you see eliminating communication errors?"
By and large, I don't think that's a significant problem.
Sean, I'm trying to understand. "The statutes define 'sexual assault'," but where in the statutes is "unwanted sexual contact" defined? Isn't "unwanted" in the eye of the beholder, and is it not the responsibility of that beholder to communicate that, clearly, rather than withhold that information for 30 years, until it has the maximum political impact?
If we are going to go back thirty years and persecute people for mistreating women, we will have tabloid headlines for years.
Self Sexual Act Terminology
Moose,
14 is clearly illegal. Where were the parents and why was nothing done until now?
18 is more interesting.
"Where were the parents and why was nothing done until now?"
It's not the victim's fault.
Moose
Moose, what makes you think these women and their parents are victims? Haven't they been paid well for their stories?
""The statutes define 'sexual assault'," but where in the statutes is "unwanted sexual contact" defined? Isn't "unwanted" in the eye of the beholder, and is it not the responsibility of that beholder to communicate that, clearly, rather than withhold that information for 30 years, until it has the maximum political impact?"
I didn't use the term "unwanted sexual contact". You've also conflated two separate points I was making into one point.
I would also suggest that it's not the victim's responsibility to live up to your expectations. One need only read the opinions expressed by yourself and John over the years (for instance, the parade of awful takes in the Brock Turner case) on this blog to understand why women hesitate to come forward in these sorts of cases.
We now have multiple women who allege Roy Moore engaged in behavior that was in some cases illegal and in other cases just really creepy. The denials spread by himself, his wife, and his attorneys have serious holes in them. If it were a Democrat in the same position, you'd have no hesitation about calling for him to go away.
I guess I don't think of it as "conflating" but rather in recognizing the broad spectrum of interpersonal "sexual" behavior, from courtship through to rape, and recognizing that, someplace along that line, it becomes "improper," and further along that line, "creepy" and eventually criminal. At each stage up until criminality, I believe the law should stay out of it. Serious harassment is now covered by law, and properly so, but the boundaries are not well-defined. Somewhere around "obnoxious" and "threatening" would cover it, but that wasn't the case 30 years ago. We didn't make that distinction and these women were not in the Judge's employ or workplace. They were, apparently, voluntarily associating with him.
That said, I understand these young women would be reluctant to come forward against a well-positioned adult, especially with no evidence. They would lose the "he said, she said" argument. But he moved on, so did they, and nothing more was said. So WHY, of all times when these memories could have been dredged up from the far-distant past, is it being done NOW? I'm sorry, but the matter of timing tells me this is not about justice of any sort; it is crassly and disgustingly political.
And you're wrong about me, too. I was the one who wanted Bill Clinton punished for breaking the law about lying under oath, not for what he lied about.
Why does a young women (or any woman) need a sense of humor to respond to a creepy guy and why do you think this should be done with a smile?
I think you likely have been mis-educating your daughters about self-respect and assertiveness.
it is my impression that these women are not paid for sharing their story. Also, I think it highly likely that they open themselves up to a great deal of abuse from creepy abusive guys who figure out how to contact them, that this very likely includes threats.
Laurie,
So an older guy propositions an 18+ year old young woman... What do you think the young woman should do to show their "self-respect and assertiveness"?
Maybe yell at him? Or slap him? Or freeze up like a deer in the head lights? Thoughts?
Please remember that "creepy" is being very judgmental for an open minded non-Christian Liberal like yourself... And "creepy" guys can be of any age...
Next you will be saying that old and young people who are "in love" can not associate...
Sounds almost like a Religious Right person judging the actions of LGBT folks to be sinful.
Moose,
We don't even know for sure that there was a victim? We just know that a woman after decades of silence claims something right before a major election.
I think we have the right to question both sides regarding their story. That is unless you want to start lynching people because a group of girls claims they are a witch. (ie salem...)
CNN Defending Moore... A fools errand
CNN Hand Writing Defense
A man in his thirties approaching young teenage girls in the mall to make inappropriate comments/ compliments is a creep.
perhaps a comment such as "what the fuck's wrong with you. Can't you find women your own age to date." would be more fitting than a laugh and a smile.
mall security had no trouble understanding he was a creep when they banned him from the mall. Why do you defend him? do you have an inner creepy side that identifies with him?
Laurie,
I know nothing about Moore or the Women... I just find it interesting that you are so ready to lynch him based on what you have heard.
Did you immediately push to have Bill Clinton fired because he was screwing around with a much younger woman in the White House?
As for swearing at man and insulting him for making a proposition...
Is that what I should do if some gay guy ever propositions me? "what's wrong with you you sick bastard, why aren't you interested in women" I don't think so...
HP Moore Banned
This seems a bit uncertain...
Are you really such an idiot as to why this creep is unfit to be a senator or are you just pretending to be aggrevatingly dense to amuse yourself. Either way I have better things to do than parry comments with you.
your analogies are dumb - you are a 50 year old man not a child -
also, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about inappropriate relations with an adult. He never should have been asked about this under oath. An appropriate consequence for the Lewinski affair would have been censure.
Question, intended to be impartial. What do any of us really KNOW for certain about this Moore situation? I don't mean a politically-biased opinion of his fitness for the Senate. I don't see convincing evidence of "moral turpitude" (which the GOP platform recognizes as disqualifying). We have some evidence of inappropriate youthful indiscretions, 40 years ago. We have reasonable suspicions based on the timing (VERY politically convenient and damaging) of these charges and of those making them (Democrats). What else?
Laurie,
Apparently you have read a few things and found him guilty...
Someone get the rope !!!
youthful indiscretions could be used to describe things one did at age 15. This description does not apply to a man in his 30's preying upon children.
I believe quite a few GOP senators share my opinion that he is unfit for this high office. Serving in the senate is a privilege not a right.
I am pretty sure I would dislike the man for his politics, but I am pretty sure I would keep an open mind regarding something that may or may not have happened ~30 years ago.
It seems that his long time wife is sticking up for him.
Then again I suppose one could note that Hillary stuck up for Bill all those times.
Laurie,
Are you saying that having or keeping a job is not a right?
So people can have you removed if you do or may have done something they disagree with?
Say something that one believes is disrespectful to the flag or immoral?
Or trolling the mall looking for 18 year olds?
And no I am not defending Moore, since I know little and care less. I just find it hypocritical that the "free to love whoever" folks are the first ones to judge him.
On the other hand I find the religious right folks just as hypocritical...
I mean they voted for Trump and we know he was a vow breaking husband who bragged about groping unwilling women... And yet they voted for him in droves...
Have you actually read the details of the story about this guy? It seems to me that there is a lot of corroboration that he was a pervert in the late 70's early 80's.
you are very bad at making judgments / conclusions based on the evidence and reports from many victims who have nothing to gain by coming forward with their experiences with him.
How would you feel about a thirty year old man hitting on your high school age daughter while she worked at the mall. Would you want her to do anything other than laugh and smile?
I meant to include this link:
Two more women describe unwanted overtures by Roy Moore at Alabama mall
Correction: "to say "no thank you" with a smile." As compared to your swear at them and hurl insults...
Now if he would not take NO for an answer. Then I hope they would ask for help.
I thought this was an interesting piece...
This is interesting also. Is it wrong that a 38 year old married a 24 year old?
"According to recent allegations in the Washington Post and Al.com, Roy Moore routinely pursued much younger women while he was in his early 30s, until he met and married a woman 14 years his junior.
Moore was 38 when he married 24-year-old Kayla Kisor. They met a year before they married, according to Moore's autobiography, "So Help Me God."
Moore wrote that he had been invited to recite poetry at a church Christmas party and spotted his future wife in the crowd."
So WHY, of all times when these memories could have been dredged up from the far-distant past, is it being done NOW?
My guess is that it has something to do with Moore running for the senate.
I am not a fan of timing issues, mainly because the answers are usually obvious and uninteresting, and because things that happen must happen at some point in time. Why
are Republicans making an issue of Hillary's uranium sales now? Why the timing? Well obviously to divert attention from the Trump's campaign's links to Moscow. Does that timing make Hillary's behavior more nefarious? Less nefarious? Not really. Regardless of the timing the issue has to stand or fall on it's own merits.
"...victims who have nothing to gain by coming forward with their experiences with him."-- Laurie
Seems to me that is something we do NOT know at this point. It seems to me that they have had some substantial incentive, or why bother? Whether money, publicity-seeking, or even some warped sense of justice, they (and Democrats) are gaining something. Qui bono, as they say.
"I believe the law should stay out of it."
Roy Moore isn't in any legal jeopardy, unless there more recent instances of said behavior. The question at this point is whether a guy who has behaved this way should be in the U.S. Senate. (Frankly, I think his flouting of the law while on the Alabama Supreme Court was disqualifying even without these allegations, but YMMV.)
"So WHY, of all times when these memories could have been dredged up from the far-distant past, is it being done NOW? I'm sorry, but the matter of timing tells me this is not about justice of any sort; it is crassly and disgustingly political."
Well, I think these women are seeing that there is something in the culture that's changing. But I do find it amusing that conservatives are finding allegations of sexual impropriety to be believable when they come from liberal Hollywood women but far less so when they're coming from small-town Alabama women (some of whom were Trump voters).
"Are you saying that having or keeping a job is not a right?
So people can have you removed if you do or may have done something they disagree with?
Say something that one believes is disrespectful to the flag or immoral?"
In September, you were arguing that NFL owners had the right to fire players for kneeling during the anthem. Is engaging in questionable behavior with 14 and 16 year olds more acceptable than that?
Sean,
The challenge is that both of these are uncertain / unproven where as we are certain that folks were kneeling during the anthem.
"a guy who has behaved this way" "engaging in questionable behavior with 14 and 16 year olds"
I have no problem with the voters of Alabama judging Moore and deciding if they should "hire him". I have an issue with everyone else from the country weighing in as if all of this has been proven to some high standard. And as if it is their business.
On a related note.
CNN Child Marriages
That's it... Let's fire Franken... :-) That much more recent behavior certainly does not seem Senator like... :-)
Fine with me.
Anyone who engages in that sort of behavior, regardless of party, can take a hike.
Gosh...look how easy it is to say that a person shouldn't be a Senator. No paragraphs filled with mansplaining and equivocation required.
See how that's done, John? jerry?
Moose
Obviously Al should be given a chance to respond, but I do have to say, I have no problem at all in applying the same or higher standards to Democrats that I do to Republicans. There is nothing irreplaceable about Al Franken.
--Hiram
Apparently Franken has called for an ethics investigation into HIMSELF.
Moose, it is terribly easy to say someone shouldn't be a Senator. I will say that about any number of them. That doesn't mean we should do it based on such allegations of improper personal behavior. Heck, we have lots of people saying Trump should not be President. The question is whether there is sufficient reasonable basis for such an action as denying them the office they hold. Apparently Bill Clinton's recent (at the time) and proven sexual behaviors did NOT constitute grounds for removal, or denial of, high office. We seem to have lost our collective minds in a rush to judgment over /relative/ trivialities.
Jerry,
If Moore was trolling for 14 yr olds when he was in his thirties.... This not a triviality...
However the idea that people in MN know what should be done regarding him based on some news articles and accusations is what amazes me..
I did say a /relative/ triviality, compared to the numerous, more contemporary and serious charges against Harvey W. or Bill C. or Carlos Danger.
On the rest, I thoroughly agree, regardless of whom you are speaking. I don't like the politics of personal destruction, regardless of who does it. A campaign based on "at least I'm not him" isn't very satisfying.
Sorry... But a 30 year old male trolling 14 year olds would be much worse than anything I have heard about regarding Bill or Harvey...
I'm so confused by this story.
The woman says the picture shows him groping her, but he's clearly mugging for the camera and is not touching her.
Both cannot be true.
Moose
John, I question your values or your information. Bill C. is credibly charged with rape, proven sexual harassment in the workplace, and many other probable or alleged "indiscretions." Harvey the same, but with less evidence. Moore, almost no evidence at all, just innuendo.
Moose, I'll agree. The picture shows either he is not touching her at all, or so lightly that her vest doesn't dent. His expression is the "crime," but the reports of his other activities mark him as being something of a creep, to borrow a term. Disqualifying? No more than Moore.
Sorry... But being a potential pedophile trumps all...
It looks like the people of Alabama can be trusted to make good choices.
I find the concept of this piece kind of humorous.
Al Franken should be investigated, and he should be held accountable, And so should Donald Trump
I can already see many of the Trump True Believers calling for Franken's head when the guy they voted in has done worse...
I'm done with this story.
I've heard and seen too many newscasts now where they show the picture and at the same time say something to the effect of: "This picture showing Al touching her breasts" or "with his hands on her breasts." I feel like I'm being gaslighted...that I'm being told that what I'm seeing is not what I'm seeing.
I'm not trying to defend Al...his other actions are worse that this staged photo...but I don't like obvious fabrications being passed off as fact.
Moose
I do agree that the focus on the photo is one of the stupidest things I have heard of in a long time. She is wearing a protective vest, he is not touching her and he is obviously just goofing off for a funny shot. Unfortunately in our current PC world that is enough to prove that he is a disrespectful white male pig who hates / denigrates women...
He is "guilty until proven innocent".
Another commenter wrote elsewhere that we're simply "making 'perfect' the enemy of 'good'" here. Especially for those of us who believe Senator Franken has been doing very good work in the Senate.
Moose
"Sorry... But being a potential pedophile trumps all..."-- John
Sorry, but by that standard Bill Clinton's many trips on the "Lolita Express" should lead the parade of resignations and disavowals.
Moose, I'm inclined to mostly agree with you. I think Franken is a clown and an embarrassment, anathema to good government, but I think this is simply WAY overboard-- like the "zero tolerance" programs in schools, where some 5-year-old nibbles his pop-tart into a shape like a gun and gets suspended. We seem to have lost all reason. At least Weinstein has enough history and opportunity to credibly be labeled an irredeemable creep. Not so with Moore and Franken.
Elsewhere it is being said that Democrats have no choice but to throw Franken under the bus because, unless they do, they cannot credibly continue their witch hunt against Judge Moore. I don't know why that should be true, since "without double standards, liberals would have no standards at all."
One more thing: The accuser who uses "the yearbook" as proof of sexual assault has refused, through her uber-feminist attorney, to release the book for independent handwriting analysis. A casual view of the document illustrates why it may not stand up to scrutiny. Other flaws in these stories are cropping up, like the "banned from the mall" story, denied by the mall's security and management.
Personally I think this applies to both sides lately...
"without double standards, extremists would have no standards at all."
I mean Trump clearly admitted grabbing women by the pussy against their will on camera and the Religious Right plugged their ears and voted for him.
He violated his wedding vows 2 times just to trade up to a hotter and younger woman and the Religious Right plugged their ears and voted for him.
It is just amazing to me how both sides rationalize their inconsistent behavior and righteous indignation?
Even now Jerry is searching for ways to ignore so many women accusing Moore. Now I understand 1 crazy woman going on the record... But 6+ seems hard to deny. Then when he was 38 he married a 24 year old. Which is fine, however it certainly shows an passion for young attractive women.
An interesting piece by National Review
John, your claim that "both sides do it" simply confirms, to me, that my comment about double standards only applies to the liberal side. After all, as you say, Trump's comments and assumed infidelities were KNOWN and "ignored" by the voters. That is applying a STANDARD, and making a judgment that those moral failings were outweighed by the good he might do for the nation. What is currently happening in the case of Moore and Franken is that some "elitist" journalists are telling us that WE may not judge, by our own standards, the actual evidence, but must instead render the judgment THEY dictate to us. They want Franken to resign, and Roy Moore to be prevented from being elected, ALL on the basis, as far as any of us really knows, any substantial evidence of a significant moral, let alone criminal, failing. We can have our suspicions "confirmed" by these largely uncorroborated stories, but that simply proves our own political leanings, nothing more.
I AM searching for information about Moore's (or Franken's) accusers, and I will ask the question again. Which among them is the most credible, the first? The second? The 4th or 6th? I cannot help but believe that the motivations, and therefore the credibility, must differ as the scandal progresses.
John, I hope "an [sic] passion for young attractive women" never becomes taboo. The human race needs to survive.
I think you are not alone in claiming that "only the other side has double standards." I think of you as the "pot" and them as the "kettle". :-)
Now you can try to blame the media, however I think the comments above indicate that normal people every where have strong opinions regarding this topic. Especially when it comes to possibly pursuing girls who are minors.
As for timing, it is unfortunate for many men who made bad behavioral choices that Harvey's scandal triggered the "me too" response when it did...
Think what you like, if it IS what you think and not something planted in your head by the Agenda Media.
OK, people have a strong opinion about what proper behavior is. So when someone makes a baseless allegation about someone, we should immediately forget any and all search for the truth and run like a howling lynch mob to the nearest tree?
I think Harvey's scandal has to be treated on its own terms. This is a Hollywood scandal, and the tabloids make some of them up all the time, while others they choose to hide. And "metoo" is just a corollary to the old Hollywood adage that bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. I don't know why the timing is what it is, but I don't think it triggered the Moore-Franken scandals other than that political opportunists "caught a wave." I'll continue to assume, and I believe rightly, that the media are blowing both these things WAY out of proportion to actual events. I would make some comment about "trumped-up charges" but it might be taken the wrong way.
Looking forward to the day, hopefully soon, when neither of these overblown "scandals" makes the news feed.
Now that last comment is something we can agree on.
Well, the scandals now swirling around CBS' Charlie Rose and Michigan Democrat John Conyers have at least driven Moore and Franken to page 2. Ugh. It's like watching Maury today: "My husband bought lacy lingerie for my SISTER!"
Interesting: today I saw the first story talking about the "Weinstein-Franken-Conyers-Charlie Rose scandals" as if they were a single social phenomenon, rather than a set of individual cases with their own set of to-date-unknown facts. It also seems to be that the same exact penalty is prescribed for every case of alleged sexual impropriety-- resignation from office (and preferably from the human race).
I have decided to read only headlines (which are unavoidable) until this madness passes.
We Americans sure find strange things news worthy...
I don't think "worthy" is the proper word for it. I think "bread and circuses" or "short attention span theater" are better descriptors. Maybe even the "drive-by media."
Since they are just for profit businesses seeking to attract viewers and advertisers... I assume it is what many Americans like to watch...
The danger, IMHO, is that most people still watch the "mainstream media" and, even though most do not trust the media in general, they DO tend to trust the media they prefer-- i.e. conservatives trust Fox, liberals trust MSNBC et al. AND, regardless of the source or the trust level, the prevailing "narrative" of what's news and what is not, gets set by the media in general and if they go all "National Enquirer" on an issue, that is what we all talk about, true, false, or wild and speculative rumor. Journalism is dead.
I don't think you can say we "want" to watch it, because it is what is on. TV shows today appeal to the lowest common denominator to get the largest audience, and TV news is just one more form of entertainment. How many people think Colbert or Limbaugh are proper sources of "news"? I don't expect them to produce edifying entertainment, nor do I expect them to produce enlightenment in their news coverage. Sad.
On topic, I would object that the current environment creates a "rush to judgment" on every issue, but what do you expect when we expect instant scores from the "judges" on our entertainment shows, and accept the same from our news anchors, regardless of (and totally without) the facts of the matter.
We shouldn't have to wait for "off-brand" sources to find out the facts before rushing to the hanging tree.
facts?
"to get the largest audience"
Yes, that is what most "for profit" businesses strive to do.
Whereas Breitbart strives to be a niche player by saying and reporting only what their small market wants to hear.
Here is another source for the questions Breitbart raised.
Apparently WAPO is trying to get the Breitbart / Moore sources to provide their info with no success...
Surprise... Not...
"Breitbart strives to be a niche player ..." My complaint is with the "major media," which Breitbart is not, obviously, but then you have to count CNN and MSNBC as "niche players" as well, considering their small audience. I do not and can not object to businesses seeking profit; it is what they do. What I object to are the perceptions that a) these people are "journalists," fairly reporting the "news," b) that it IS "news" and "newsworthy" (e.g. Melania's footwear is not), and c) that the overwhelming majority of these sources are left-liberal and create an instant "narrative" that favors leftist ideas, objectives, policies and candidates. Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying "this program does not need equal time, I AM equal time." But of course he isn't because he isn't 24/7 on most "news" outlets.
WAPO is naturally upset that their original and ongoing smear is being challenged. And nobody wants to provide the one piece of physical evidence, the yearbook, so their faux outrage doesn't much count, nor does their demand for "sources" hold water, since the official court records are available to anybody, as well as the corroboration of the other massive inconsistencies in at least two of the 3 stories.
I think this is a case for Occam's razor. Considering the many assumptions needed to believe all these stories together, the simplest seems to be that someone took this time, weeks before a major election, to dredge up [faulty] 40-year-old memories and pull political dirty tricks. And that the women were enticed by money, or by the same "logic" that draws people to appear on Maury.
I don’t know much about MSNBC, but CNN’s reach is huge. So many airports and hotels worldwide. Them and BBC.
Do you care to comment on the rest of it? Or merely wish to dismiss everything on the basis of one small contentious point? If it helps, I will substitute the Star Tribune (print and e-edition) for CNN-- surely a "niche player" in the scheme of things. It's all part of that vast left-wing miasma.
I have no doubt that WAPO is slightly Left of center.
Just as Breitbart is Far Right. Therefore I take this into consideration whenever I read them.
Do you do the same?
I noticed that not even FOX had picked up on Breitbart's questioning Moore's accuser story. And the WAPO response seemed balanced and logical.
I, like every human being, look for news that satisfies my "confirmation bias." I read sources that tend to agree with me most of the time and if they ARE biased it doesn't "show" because I already agree with them. I am free to pick out the underlying facts and draw my own conclusions. When given a source that usually does NOT agree (or which was previously unknown) I do the same thing. I read through for the facts (waiting for confirmation from a more trustworthy source, and ignore the "conclusions" to which that source directs me. And any glaring omissions of the facts is simply the bias of that source until proven that the "facts" found elsewhere are outright lies. I do not see how official court records, available to everybody, can be other than fact. What conclusions to draw from them, that is bias.
Want an example? Post says "court records were known to the Post." Fact: they did not find the contradiction of Korfman's story. Conclusion: left bias. Proof: allsides.
Even the Breitbart story indicates that the court records may or may not be relevant.
"This would mean that from the court hearing on February 21, 1979, until Corfman was ordered to move to her father’s house, Moore would only have had 12 days, including the day of the court hearing, to have repeatedly called Corfman at her mother’s Gadsden house, arrange two meetings, and attempt another. Moore has strenuously denied the accusations.
While that timeline is theoretically possible, the Moore campaign stressed in a press conference today it is unlikely.
Ben DuPre, Moore’s former chief of staff on the Alabama Supreme Court, spoke today on behalf of the campaign. DuPre noted that “as best as we can tell” the February 21, 1979, case was the only court movement to have taken place that month. Breitbart News also could not find another court document from that month in 1979.
The disclosure raises questions about why that twelve-day window was not mentioned in the Post story or by Wells or Corfman in subsequent interviews. Neither Corfman nor Wells publicly mentioned the change in custody during the critical period where Moore was said to have arranged meetings with Corfman outside her mother’s home."
Original WAPO Report
I don't they told me what to think...
Laurie,
Assuming the Parent's of the kids at your school for the most part have stayed together.
What is the primary reason why the "not special ed" kids are not succeeding?
- Does something about the Somali culture make educating the kids hard?
- Are the Parents pretty well limited in their English and/or other academic capabilities?
Ref 1Ref 2
Ref 3
Ref 4
Ref 5
The last link had this challenging insight...
"AA: It has been a real challenge, parental involvement in the schools. The assumption was the teacher is responsible for everything. So once I send my child to school, it’s the teacher’s and the school’s responsibility. This was the mindset that the parents came with, and us teachers continue to communicate with them, talk to them, and tell them about how they need to be in the building. They need to know the teacher.
Of course, I don’t blame the parents who do not speak the language, who are not used to the educational system, who feel intimidated by this huge system. But, gradually, I think the younger parents are beginning to be more involved and more outgoing in knowing about their child’s education. This also is a huge adjustment that parents need to make."
This reminds me of the questionable and neglectful mamas and papas I have met before.
Hopefully the Teachers /Society can change this Parental belief system.
Now that I think of it... It seems to be what Jerry believes even now. :-)
The parents aren't responsible for their children, the schools are...
And yet we have many accounts of school systems, not necessarily individual teachers, demanding that education be "left to the professionals."
"I don't they told me what to think..."
Of course not. That is the way confirmation bias (and propaganda) works. I've done this while teaching HS kids-- asking them their perceptions of reality about the percentage of teens having sex, the percent of people living together, the cost of things like a weekend in Paris (like everybody can afford one), etc. Because of the popular culture, they always vastly overestimate these things; it is unavoidable.
Laurie, headline news from the Star Tribune that the young rape victim (NOT of Franken) seeking federal legislation has asked that Senator Franken no longer be the sponsor of her bill (and Sen. Klobuchar is). And for that she is being roundly criticized and vilified. Yet when it is a Republican being accused, we are expected to criticize and vilify the accused and to believe and sympathize with the accuser? Does anybody else see an egregious double standard here?
I have yet to meet a school or Teacher who does not strive to engage the parents in the education of their children. Unfortunately the mamas / papas of unlucky kids do not know how or they are negligent.
Above you clearly said they bias the narrative, where as I just see them reporting the victim's account."c) that the overwhelming majority of these sources are left-liberal and create an instant "narrative" that favors leftist ideas, objectives, policies and candidates."
"she is being roundly criticized and vilified" By who... It must have been made up by some right leaning source.
Actually, the woman is a Democrat and she is being savaged for not "standing behind" Sen. Franken, by feminists and leftist defenders of Franken. As I said earlier, you cannot speak the truth anymore, because it gets you kicked out of the tribe.
Your experience is different. A parent that takes "too much" interest in the schools becomes persona non grata pretty quickly.
Post a Comment