YOUR COMMENTS, SHARES, OR RECOMMENDATION ON ANY PARTICULAR COMMENTARY USING WHICHEVER BUTTON THAT WORKS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. IT GIVES ME AN IDEA OF WHAT SUBJECTS ARE POPULAR, OR THOSE NOT LIKED. THANKS A MILLION
First, let me be clear, I’m going to be pleased when Al Franken is gone from the Senate. He didn’t belong there. A mediocre comedian at best, he won his bid for the Senate under suspicious circumstances, having lost the initial count. One wonders, if Minnesotans didn’t have a predilection for asking someone to hold their beer and watch while they vote for the oddball candidate, would the original count have been as close as it was. By all accounts, he is not a nice person, and is more or less a lap-dog for the Far-Left, thus continuing his comedic career.
Eight women have come forward to accuse Franken of some sort of misconduct. Four of the eight have remained anonymous, thus denying the man a right to face his accuser. In this country, pre-Obama, the accused used to be granted the right to face his/her accusers. In my mind, their claims are speculative at best, if not just illegitimate.
The four named accusers all had the misfortune of being groped or kissed by Al Franken, the clown, before he became Senator Franken – eight-and-a-half years ago. There is even photographic proof of a dumb stunt he pulled on Leeann Tweeden while she was asleep on a plane. Why didn’t she or the others tell anyone at the time of the alleged atrocity? Wouldn’t that have been nice information to know prior to the election? Do you suppose his status as a comedian “of note” for Saturday Night Live might have been a determining factor for the silence? And when did just an accusation become substantiation?
Some speculate that Franken is now the sacrificial lamb by the Democratic party so that they can make a fuss if Roy Moore from Alabama gets elected. At the time this started, the public didn’t know about John Conyers escapades, otherwise Franken might have skated. Moore is the Republican judge from Alabama who has been alleged to be a sexual predator of eight women as far back as forty years ago, an accusation he denies. Gloria Allred is representing one accuser, which adds suspicion to the validity of any claim. Anyway, the last claim against Moore allegedly happened in 1991, twenty-six years ago. I don’t know about you folks, but I have a hard time remembering what I had for breakfast yesterday. If someone accused me of doing something forty years ago, given it was the 70’s, I might have to consent to them and apologize, having no clear recollection of most of the decade.
Doesn’t any of this sound suspiciously of just another day of Washington politics? Cogs in a giant gear being ground up and shoved down our gullets by an implicit media? But Franken’s career is now over and his name has been tainted. (Good Lord, I can’t believe I’m defending this man!) His name is now tossed in the same hat as people like Dennis Hastert or Anthony Weiner, both doing time in prison for their crimes.
Does anybody really believe Al Franken’s escapades should be enough to throw him in jail or ruin his life, eight-a-half years after he allegedly did something sophomoric? Is there not a line being blurred between unappreciated advances as compared to actual crimes? Can anyone now clearly point out the dividing line in today’s societal mores? And given the further back in time one reaches, the harder it is to verify, shouldn’t there be a statute of limitation?
There is a valid viewpoint concerning the power structure of any given situation. But, when referring to adults, this can be over-hyped and in the case of Al Franken, certainly should not be confused with just being “star-struck.” This viewpoint might be better served for protecting children.
Many great minds throughout history stated in one form or another, the quotation “silence is consent.” This would include Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein and even Martin Luther King. It does seem, at least to me, to be a common-sense notion, although admittedly, I couldn’t find any examples of women making that statement. It has only been in these “enlightened times” that the definition has morphed into having subsets of definitions as to when the quote might apply and when it might not. If one believes they have been wronged, is it asking too much for them to do something about it, and on a timely basis? Nine years or more after the fact has all the markings of nothing more than politics - a poor excuse for anything.
Otherwise, how is this any different than the Salem witch trials or McCarthy-ism?