Some people scoffed when I suggested, early on, that the "Believe Women" movement would be used to benefit the Trumpers. Now we have allegations against Al Fanken, John Conyers, George Takei, Charlie Rose, Glen Thrush, Kevin Spacey (the guy who flew with Clinton aboard Epstein's aircraft) and a host of pro-Dem celebrities (the latest being Oliver Stone). Plus: We've had to endure a hearty new round of Clinton-hate. Our society just loves to shout hate hate hate at anyone named Clinton.
It all started with Weinstein, who truly deserved to be pilloried. Then came Moore, who also seems to be a genuine scoundrel. But beyond those two...? Cah-MON. You'd have to be an idiot not to see the partisan pattern.
(I still think that Biden is next. And maybe they'll find a way to go after Rachel Maddow. Won't that be novel?)
Tellingly, the initial allegation against Franken was "predicted" by Roger Stone, who can't resist calling the shot, even when he should keep his trap shut.
The documents in the Conyers case were "washed" through Mike Cernovich, a right-wing conspiracy theorist and genuine sexist.
Cernovich initially was not much interested in politics, except where it involved feminism (Danger & Play: “The two pillars of feminism are narcissism and entitlement”). He generally occupied his time writing blog posts such as “Misogyny Gets You Laid,” “When Should You Compliment a Woman?” [A: “During or after sex”], and “How to Cheat on Your Girlfriend.” But in Donald Trump, Cernovich found a man he takes to be a kindred spirit — or, at the very least, an opportunity.That's the guy who's now talking smack about John Conyers.
A national conversation about sexual harassment, even if valid and overdue, was always going to benefit the Republicans and to hurt the Dems, for the simple reason that the Democratic electorate is much more likely to turn on its own. That's why Roy Moore is going to be elected to the Senate and Al Franken is going to be forced to leave.
Now let's discuss the second big "grope" claim against Franken.
As you know, I have a two-step formula for making political predictions: 1. Presume the worst. 2. Watch it happen. That approach doesn't always work, but it succeeds often enough. One drawback of this formula is that it sometimes leaves me rooting for "the worst" to happen, in order to see the fulfillment of one of my little prophecies.
On the 14th, I predicted that Al Franken would be targeted; on the 16th, the first smear hit him. (And we now know that he really was smeared.) I then predicted that new accusations against Franken would make headlines within a week.
After a few days, worry set in: What if there isn't another charge against Franken? If no second accuser came forward, I'd have egg on my face.
So in a weird way, and for a weird reason, I was actually a bit relieved when the second charge came out. Bad news for Al, but at least my rep as a prophet would stay intact.
The new charge looks like new bullshit. This writer seems to have it right. The idea of Al Franken grabbing the butt of a woman while her husband snaps a photo seems more than a little difficult to swallow. The fact that this accuser is another Republican seems more than a little...familiar. (Note the double standard: The primary Moore accuser would have been automatically dismissed if she had been a Democrat.)
Now let's zoom out for a wider view. This latest allegation against Al Franken reminds me of one of my pet peeves.
There have been a few times in my life when photographers asked me to stand close to a woman I did not know well, and even to put my arm around her waist. I've not been in this situation for a while, because over the course of the past twenty years, I've become something of a recluse and have avoided being photographed.
From a male perspective, it is not always easy to put your arm on a woman's waist without accidentally brushing her rear end. Please note that, in the preceding sentence, I did not put quotation marks around the word accidentally. Yes, touching a woman's rear end can (and does) happen as a bona fide accident.
The surest way is to make sure your hand goes to the proper place on the woman's body is to keep your eye on the lady's backside. But doing that may be considered a bit pervy in its own right. Besides, one naturally wants to look at the camera. Perhaps the best approach is to swing your arm behind her head and work down -- but even then, it's largely a matter of luck if the hand makes contact at exactly the right latitude.
(Don't believe me, female readers? Stand next to one of your female friends and make the experiment. The experiment will be fairer if you choose a friend who is much shorter.)
Frankly, the whole business is way too much trouble, especially in these sensitive times. All of which leads me to say in public something that I've been saying in private for quite a few years:
WHY IN HELL'S NAME DO PHOTOGRAPHERS ASK US TO DO THAT?
Photographers often demand that their subjects stand close enough to touch. Well, what if I don't want to?
Individuals and cultures have differing conceptions of personal space. Ever since childhood, I have never enjoyed standing close to anyone else, and I've never liked being touched by others -- not even a pat on the shoulder or a friendly hug. I loathe shaking hands. Each and every time, it gives me the heebie-jeebies.
There's usually a fair amount of space between myself and the person speaking to me. This distance sometimes causes comprehension problems, since my voice doesn't carry.
The one great exception, of course, is when I'm with a woman with whom I've established some kind of romantic or emotional attachment. She is allowed into my personal space. Everyone else should stay at least two feet away, preferably farther.
Scientists call this field of study proxemics. Is mine an extreme case? Dunno. I am the way I am. You are the way you are. We all are the way we all are.
From a proxemic point of view, I must ask again: Why do photographers ask us to stand close to each other? Why do they ask us to hold hands or to link arms? To touch each other in a "friendly" fashion? Don't they understand that these requests make some people feel uncomfortable?
To me, it's all...just...yuck.
Come to think of it: The last time anyone ever photographed me standing next to someone else was in the mid-1990s. The person next to me had once been a Playboy centerfold model. (How did that "beauty and the beast" situation come about, you ask? Long story. Let's just say that, back in the day, I used to get out and meet all sorts of interesting people.)
The photographer practically shouted at me to get closer to this woman and to put my hand around her waist. Yes, I managed to accomplish that task without touching her rear.
Even so, the whole business kinda pissed me off. I just don't feel comfortable standing so close to someone I don't know well, not even if that "someone" looks gorgeous. Thanks to this photographer, an interesting afternoon was marred by an annoyance.
Bottom line: If I didn't want to stand next to a woman famed for her beauty, then I'm obviously one of those people who has a problem standing close to anyone.
Photographers: Stop it. Just let people stand where they want to stand. Compose your shots based on what you're given.
9 comments:
You all are beating around the proverbial bush.. Can I say Bush in 2017? Have I offended anyone by saying Bush? Let me repeat... The problem with Al Franken is he is being a wuss. All of these Democrats are being wusses. Fucking stand up like a man and defend yourselves for Christ's sake. Can I say stand up like a man in 2017 or is that also offensive?
The Republican lady, at the fair if Al didn't grope her on the butt then stop apologizing and acting like a puss(or Dick, choose your offence) and stand your ground. Instead Al Franken said something to the effect he didn't remember or apologizes for making her uncomfortable. If he did grope her butt then admit it, ask forgiveness and either move on or move out. If you didn't do it then stop fucking apologizing dipshit.
WWTD? What would Trump do? Although alleged to have committed rape himself, he calls Al Franken a serial groper to his face and gets away with it. What does Trump have that Franken and other Democrats do not? APPARENTLY A PAIR OF BIG FUCKING ORANGE BALLS!!! And Trump wins while Pussycrats lose. (Would Al Franken as a comedian ever use a word like Pussycrats or would that be too offensive to his audience?)
What do you think the percentage of guys is that have touched a woman inappropriately at some point in life? My guess is many.... 80% or more, and most did it when they were very young and stopped as they grew into adulthood, and learned appropriate behaviour. So roughly 80 to 90 % of boys/men therefore have committed a sexual assault against someone at some point in life since ass groping , touches on the legs, knees, shoulders is all now full on sexual assault. How many women have grabbed a guy inappropriately... Probably around 60%... How many asses did Leean Tweeden grope on her USO tours? Did Al Franken defend himself with this bit of knowledge? Of course he didn't. Why? WUSS.
WWTD? He would kick some wuss's ass in and win. And then sue them for bleeding all over the boot he kicked their ass with.
Unlike Bible Thumpers, apparently the left wing in its zeal to protect women from harassment and prove itself morally superior have absolutely zero concept of forgiveness or the idea men can change over time(although some don't)... But at least Christians have a fucking concept of FORGIVENESS and ATONING FOR SIN, while the left which does not have a spiritual concept at its core really regarding FORGIVENESS/ATONEMENT just self-mutilates itselfs as it tries to purge all sinners. Take a lesson from Christians: THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO MORONS SO KEEP CUTTING UNTIL NOTHING IS LEFT AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT FOR YOU.
IMTMFS
Imagine if Hillary's response during her campaign was going after dumb for calling her crooked. Imagine her any time some mentioned email she had an army of responders forcefully refuting every point. Policies and issues are for pussies. That's not what America wants in a president. They want fire and balls. Democrats pleeeese change.
Ah, but then Hillary is "taking the bait". Remember that argument? Supposedly, the best way to counter Trump is to ignore him and talk about jobs. Which is what Hillary mostly did and got zero press coverage from it. Thankfully, she knew ignoring Trump was idiotic and did respond to him, but sadly, didn't do it well enough.
1993, President Bill Clinton decides to make nice with republicans despite the smear campaign against him. Instead of reopening Iran-Contra he holds out an olive branch, Newt Gingrich thanks Bill with Whitewater.
2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gives Bush the Lesser and dick Cheney get out of jail cards with "Impeachment is off the table". The republicans know a fool when they see one and take advantage of the Democrats in subsequent elections.
30% of America is lost to reason and critical thinking but they show up at the polls to vote republican. Meanwhile Democrats either stay home or vote third party because Caesar's wife wasn't above reproach.
The DNC did this to themselves when they abandoned Blue Collar Union voters, the only reliable support they had, in favor of the Big Tent. Too bad John Murtha didn't survive his perforated colon, we could have had him instead of fool Pelosi.
Sadly, as Joseph points out, the Dems have dug their own hole here. They've fully embraced the believe women meme, which on it's face isn't a bad thing. However, it leaves them in a position, like Franken, that if they are accused they can't just deny it (even if they really didn't do anything). They have to grovel and apologize and beg forgiveness from their female constituents. Now, if Fraken DID do what is being suggested (which, considering the right wing nature of his accusers and the fact that the first one has already been proven a liar), then his reaction was the right thing to do, morally. Unfortunately, the right has no such moral compulsions, and since the Dems have chosen to try to occupy the high ground (a huge mistake at this stage of the political game, if you ask me), they are hanging them on their own petards, just as Joseph predicted. It was all so predictable in the first place. It's not like Roger Stone hasn't done this before, yet the left just can't seem to wrap it's collective head around this and come up with a reasonable defense against it. Calling out liars, even if they are women, would probably be a good start, but right now they are too afraid of offending a large chunk of their supporters, who obviously greatly prefer purity to actually having a chance of putting their ideals into practice in America via legislation. They'd rather be pure than have any say in how America is run. So, they get what they deserve, sadly. This is not what I want, and I know it's not what the left wants but they have painted themselves into this corner and they need to get out of it, even if it means playing dirty or pissing off feminists. The feminists won't have ANY say if things continue the way they are going, and that is a BAD thing. Time to wake up.
When people do things that are nefarious, or even socially unacceptable, they do them in private. And that is the big difference between Moore and Franken. Asking girls out, even those generationally different may not even be unacceptable in certain cultures, but attacking a girl is. It is what Moore did in private that was both illegal and immoral. What Franken allegedly did was done in public. It is hardly surprising that the allegations against Franken are questionable, while those against Moore are not. I may not always agree with Cannon, but he is quite right that the right wing is trying to confuse and obfuscate. The goal is to paint a picture of ambiguity and/or an everybody does it mentality so it's ok for Moore.
Added note:
Sometimes I'm needlessly cryptic. The former Playboy centerfold referenced above was Janet Lupo, who, I'm sorry to say, died earlier this month. A very nice lady. She told me that after her appearance in the magazine, Tom Laughlin flew her out to Hollywood because he wanted her to appear in (of all things) "Billy Jack Goes to Washington." Lupo had no desire to act, but went on the trip anyways because she wanted to visit Disneyland. I believe that the part offered to her eventually went to Suzanne Somers, who had a larger role in the script than she does in the final film.
Janet managed the rare trick of staying sensible when Hollywood comes a-beckoning.
Joseph, you wrote about how just preceding the attack on Franken, there was a giveaway by "Roger Stone, who can't resist calling the shot, even when he should keep his trap shut."
I think that such "accidents" or smarty-pants blurtings are actually intentional. They are sort of like hand prints left to indicate intentional vandalism, and have a psychological warfare purpose. They say, "We got you and there's nothing you can do about it. Enjoy the feelings of helplessness.
Interested readers might review the concept of "learned helplessness" (from which we can conclude that the right wing has developed a long campaign of Taught Helplessness. And it is asked why Dems are so weak) One such very good review, though applying to the development of the torture program under Bush 2, was written by philosopher Tamsin Shaw in the NY Review of Books, very worth reading, along with the responses and is available without paywall here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/the-psychologists-take-power/
Post a Comment