Someone else who is calling out the lying, hypocritical tramp for what she really is.

Big LeeLee, as her friends in Los Angeles call her, has always spoken highly of YOUR work, Paddycakes. It's a shame that you can't be as gracious, and have to continue with your gutter talk.

Note also that noted social theorist Arnold did not actually dispute the veracity of her accusations, or the accusations of THE OTHER SIX (seven?) WOMEN WHO DESCRIBED SIMILARLY OBNOXIOUS INTRUSIONS.

Do the Darwin Awards have an honorable mention category for people who do really stupid things that should remove them from the gene pool, but through some miraculous luck and the intervention of public servants, they survive?

If not, they should.

And why should I drop it, Crid? It's been so successful at annoying you.

And why should I drop it, Crid? It's been so successful at annoying you. ~ Patrick at December 9, 2017 1:36 AM

Petulant fan boy loses idol and pitches fit. Film at 11.

Someone else who is calling out the lying, hypocritical tramp for what she really is. ~ Patrick at December 9, 2017 12:37 AM

Tom Arnold!? Tom "The Stupids" Arnold?

So, Tom Arnold is disappointed in his friend, "Leann Tweedon?" A "friend" whose name he cannot spell? Wow, that friendship is a real-life Damon and Pythias.

Arnold had "hoped she'd use her voice to speak out for all women again predators like Roy Moore & Donald Trump...." So, speaking out against predators like Al Franken doesn't count toward speaking out for "all women?"

This is the same Tom Arnold who once claimed to be in possession of video that would have ruined Trump if released during the election, footage that "hundreds" of people have seen, but no one ever released, because they were "scared" of Trump's people and that they'd never work again. I guess it's one of those mystery videos that "everyone knows about" but no one can actually produce when challenged.

I think Tom needs to adjust his tin foil hat, it's cutting off the circulation to his brain.

Shiny side OUT, always.

Petulant fan boy loses idol and pitches fit. Film at 11.

"Petulant"? Uh, were you, by any chance, looking at a mirror when you said that?

I would enjoy trolling you and Crid far more, Short Fuse, if the two of you didn't have to make it so goddamned easy. This is a blog that discusses political issues; you are both in dire need of a thicker skin, Soy Boys.

I never said I was a fan of Franken's. I believe I told you, I agree with him on some things; others I don't. Gun control, for isntance, which he dedicated an entire chapter to in his first book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, and Other Observations," is not something I see eye-to-eye with him on. Also, in his chapter about affirmative action, his point about Clarence Thomas was misleading, and probably intentionally. He attacked Clarence Thomas for being against affirmative action, while being the beneficiary of same. What Franken didn't tell us is that Thomas's affirmative action program did not make any adjustments for his academics, like some of the programs do now, but only provided financial support.

But whatever it takes to get you through the night, Conan.

For anyone that wants to know what I think and would rather ask me than let Conan decide for you, I couldn't care less about Franken. If he refuses to even stand up for himself, or even wait for the ethics probe (that he himself called for), and will heed the calls to resign from those who would condemn him without a single shred of evidence, he deserves precisely what he gets.

No honor, no guts. And most delectable about his downfall is that he's being hoisted on his own petard. He's the one who said that we must believe these women who come forward. No, we must believe no one who comes forward, with any allegation. They have the burden of proof.

But since he's the one who decided that rape and sexual assault were the magical exceptions to the rule of innocent until proven guilty, he's unable to defend himself without calling these women liars. So, either he lays down and accepts these abuses (which is what he's doing), or he exposes himself as a hypocrite for saying that we have to believe these women who come forward.

If only he were more sympathetic and if these accusations resulted in his death, it would have the makings of a Shakespearean tragedy. I liked him better as a book author.

But I have no concerns for his future. He will live quite well on SNL residuals, book sales, and his pension as a Senator, even if he did only complete one term.

He'll be replaced with another liberal, since the Minnesota governor is one. Business as usual.

Thout shall not seek refuge in college sports.

Sorry - No refuge in college sports.

Go Navy! Beat Army('s rapey QB).

WaPo >> CNN

https://twitter.com/amber_athey/status/939222947235094530

No doubt someone, sometime, scrawled racist graffiti somewhere. But in the modern era, don’t just about all of these incidents turn out to be hoaxes? That’s the way it seems. If racism is such a prevalent force in our society, as college students are taught and liberals fervently believe, why is it necessary to fabricate so many false instances of it?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/yet-another-racism-hoax.php

Fun.

...why is it necessary to fabricate so many false instances of it? ~ from a link by I R A Darth Aggie at December 9, 2017 7:00 AM

Why? Because we don't live in an age of reason, we live in an age of hysteria. A cake-baking argument is either an attack on Christianity or rampant homophobia. A simulated grope caught on camera is sexual assault. A signature in a yearbook is proof of pedophilia. Bragging on tape about celebrities being able to do a vulgar thing without consequence is proof the bragger has done it. Arresting a criminal of a certain race is proof the system hates that race, not that it hates criminals. And being a victim of these fabricated things conveys power and, at the very least, publicity and a book deal for your attorney.

Why fabricate? Why over-react to a minor incident? Because people must be worked up to set the stage for the 2018 elections. Racism, homophobia, and misogyny are rampaging though the village and the monster in the castle must be killed. I'll grab the pitchforks, you go rouse the villagers.

Daniel Flynn put it best in a piece in The American Spectator: "But we live in an age of zero tolerance (and zero discernment) in which Al Franken is Charlie Rose is Kevin Spacey is Harvey Weinstein. Nuances, such as the difference between behaving like a jerk and raping a woman, get lost in a torch-and-pitchforks environment."

This time, Atticus Finch, the voice of reason standing athwart the mob on the courthouse steps, gets hanged alongside Tom Robinson. And Boo Radley gets dragged out of his house and hanged as well.

Boo had it coming.

Conan:

This time, Atticus Finch, the voice of reason standing athwart the mob on the courthouse steps, gets hanged alongside Tom Robinson. And Boo Radley gets dragged out of his house and hanged as well.

Very eloquent and insightful. I did especially enjoy the reference from "To Kill a Mockingbird" at the end. And I very much agree that hysteria has become the Master of Ceremonies. When victim privilege empowers you over the lives and livelihood of others, we gain capital by seeking out as much offense as possible.

Even if it means claiming the offenses suffered by our ancestors as our own.

For what it's worth regardless of who says it Tweeden is a hypocrite.

So far I've only seen one photo of Franken pantomiming inappropriate behavior.

Seen far more of Tweeden actually fondling people

Seen far more of Tweeden actually fondling people ~ lujlp at December 9, 2017 11:21 AM

With permission or without? An important distinction.

Conan:

With permission or without? An important distinction.

In our discussions, Conan, I noted that you tended to make benevolent assumptions on her behalf. You once told me that we should assume that consent was given.

I'd like to know why we have to assume that. When she went twerking against that guitarist/singer, he didn't seem to know she was coming.

However, since he gave her a little pinch in response, that is pretty much giving consent if he didn't give it before.

(I spoke to a lawyer, joking about a total stranger who came up to me while I was doing dumbbell bench presses at the gym and started giving me an assist that I didn't ask for, and didn't want. However, because I didn't want to be a total ass to the person who was trying to be helpful, I went ahead and did a couple of forced reps, even though I don't believe in forced reps. I asked my lawyer friend if I could sue for battery. He replied that by doing the forced reps, I consented to the contact.

In other words, if I was really seriously going to pursue a charge of battery against this person, I cannot cooperate with his efforts to assist.)

Are you absolutely certain that he would have just as soon not be upstaged by an attractive woman twerking against him and fondling him, and that he would rather have been left alone to perform his song for the soldiers?

Also, you insisted that the man she called up onstage and kissed just had to have known what was coming. How do we know this?

And finally, I would point out (which was the reason for sharing my personal story earlier), that we live with a double-standard that is still very much active today: men are expected to find this kind of attention flattering and to play along. A man who became outraged because a woman touched him inappropriately would be ripped on by his buddies for the rest of his natural existence, and we all know it.

So, there might have been men among those performers who would just as soon Leeann Tweeden kept her hands, lips and buttocks to herself.

I've been in the military and I've known a few soldiers who endure the hardship of extended separation from their spouses. How do you know that man she kissed wasn't thinking, "I hope my wife doesn't see this," knowing full well that if his wife does see it, she's going to be upset at the sight of him kissing another woman when she hasn't even seen him for six months?

Let me ask you, if Leeann Tweeden had been a man groping apparently unsuspecting women, would you still be making these benevolent assumptions about consent on his behalf?

You can correct me if I'm wrong; that's fine. I'm willing to accept whatever you tell me is your perspective. But the impression I'm getting is that you're making all these benevolent assumptions on her behalf because she's a woman and you're being chivalrous.

And my perspective is this: Unless Tweeden went up to each individual performer and audience member that she put her hands (lips or buttocks) on, and asked their permission in advance, she did not have their consent. She took advantage of men's reluctance to protest being fondled against their will, due to the double standard I mentioned earlier.

And among the performers, this could have been handled quite amicably. Simply give each performer in the show a contractual waiver, and let them check, "I consent," or "I do not consent" as they wish. Brief Tweeden beforehand as to which performers are "hands off," and problem solved.

As for the audience, let them know what the show is about beforehand. And Tweeden should only invite those volunteers who put their hands up. Every else should be considered off limits to her.

I agree that consent is a big distinction. The problem I have with your perspective is that it appears you're assuming consent when there's no evidence for it.

Eight.

There were eight accusations.

I don't even know who Chelsea Handler is, but apparently, she's someone that people love to hate.

I agree that consent is a big distinction. The problem I have with your perspective is that it appears you're assuming consent when there's no evidence for it. ~ Patrick at December 9, 2017 12:19 PM

No complaints against Tweeden so far of unwanted contact. And eight against Franken so far.

Also, if you get called up on stage by a performer who's not a singer, not a dancer, and not a comedian, but has been twerking with the band on a USO show stage, and you're none of these things either, you're not exactly expecting that she invited you up there to lay down some tracks with the band or to tell a few jokes.

As such, it's not entirely unexpected that she dances (twerks) with you and lays a wet one on you by way of saying thanks. Some overt consent beforehand would have been nice, but not exactly necessary. She probably (assuming here) asked or signaled for volunteers to come on stage and this guy was chosen from the volunteers.

As for the band, they probably did a rehearsal with her, so the guitarist was expecting some kind of action from her, perhaps a twerk, perhaps her to dance beside him, but it doesn't look like he was surprised by the move she put on him.

As I said, this was an entertainment stage show, not a photo op with your US Senator. Certain expectations of behavior that you might have for a stage show would be inappropriate, and completely unexpected, for a campaign stop by a US Senator.

I mean, you wouldn't expect that after entertaining you with songs and dancing, Orrin Hatch would invite you on stage and twerk you or plant a wet one on you. Normal decorum for Senatorial campaign stops would hold that to be inappropriate. Normal decorum for a war zone USO show might hold that behavior to be acceptable.

So, getting goosed by Al Franken at a state fair campaign photo op is not equivalent to getting kissed or twerked by an entertainer at a USO show. The same standards of behavior do not apply. That's why I kept making a distinction between the simulated grope by Al Franken, USO entertainer and comedian, and the seven alleged gropes by Al Franken, US Senator.

Anybuddy remember the "Pete Tagliani" sketch? It's stuck with me for forty years... It was that lame.

(Google)

Ah, it was one of the times Zappa was on.

Well, the things you describe aren't impossible, but again, these benevolent assumptions are just that: assumptions.

No complaints against Tweeden so far of unwanted contact.

Because any male over the age of puberty is acutely aware that men are expected to play along with this, like it or not. Only women reserve the right to object to unwanted fondling. This point you don't seem to acknowledge.

Doubtless, you remember the video I posted of a sexual assault perpetrated by two women on a man in a convenient store that resulted in at least one of their arrests.

Aside from him being the exception to the rule of men not objecting to overtly sexual contact from strange (in both senses of the term) women, was the fact that the perps seemed to fully understand this same double standard. I'm quite certain that the very worst they expected was the man to shy away and they could ridicule and shame him for it. Most likely, they expected him to be flattered and play along. I doubt they expected the police to be called. Because again, the double-standard that doesn't allow men to object to unwanted fondling from women.

Also, if you get called up on stage by a performer who's not a singer, not a dancer, and not a comedian, but has been twerking with the band on a USO show stage, and you're none of these things either, you're not exactly expecting that she invited you up there to lay down some tracks with the band or to tell a few jokes.

Assuming that the audience member knows who she is and knows that she -- let's face it -- doesn't have any talents that lend themselves to stage performances, and assuming she wasn't the opening act and assuming that even if she wasn't the opening act, that she was doing all those things. I'd never even heard of Leeann Tweeden prior to this, and I wish I had remained ignorant.

Some overt consent beforehand would have been nice, but not exactly necessary.

A woman you don't even know decides to kiss you, grab you and fondle you and needs no consent? I beg to differ. And so would the two women in the convenient store who have undoubtedly learned better.

As for the band, they probably did a rehearsal with her,...

Not necessarily. They're a separate act that operates independently from all the others. A USO show is not a play that expects continuity and interaction among the performers. She apparently interjects herself whenever and wherever the spirit moves her.

And I also disagree that the implicit consent that you seem convinced happened is good enough. I am a stage performer, too. In fact, tomorrow, I'm auditioning for Jeckyll & Hyde, the darkest bit of musical theatre I've ever seen or heard of. And no, I would not be okay with Leeann Tweeden's actions, regardless of the gender and attractiveness of the perpetrator.

I understand what you're saying Patrick, but I think you're trying to make your point with a weak exemplar.

Because any male over the age of puberty is acutely aware that men are expected to play along with this, like it or not. ~ Patrick at December 9, 2017 3:15 PM

And not one of them is politically active and willing to turn the tables on Tweeden, or on the sexual harassment conversation in general?

I beg to differ. And so would the two women in the convenient store who have undoubtedly learned better. ~ Patrick at December 9, 2017 3:15 PM.

Again, Patrick, context.

The women in the convenience store were approaching (assaulting?) random strangers, not people they'd invited to join them on stage or who were sharing an entertainment stage with them.

A USO show is not a play that expects continuity and interaction among the performers. She apparently interjects herself whenever and wherever the spirit moves her. ~ Patrick at December 9, 2017 3:15 PM.

Based on their reactions, I'm sure her actions were not unexpected by the other performers. They, however, are free to speak up and point out that they felt uncomfortable with her actions.

I'm auditioning for Jekyll & Hyde, the darkest bit of musical theatre I've ever seen or heard of. And no, I would not be okay with Leeann Tweeden's actions, regardless of the gender and attractiveness of the perpetrator. ~ Patrick at December 9, 2017 3:15 PM.

That's a play, not a variety show. As you pointed out in the paragraph above this one, different expectations.

I wouldn't think anyone in a play, even a musical one, would expect a hostess to twerk them in the middle of the show. I wouldn't expect a play to have a hostess on stage with little to contribute except some playful antics. I would think things would be choreographed a bit tighter than they would be in a variety show.

And good luck with your audition.

Competent tickling: Gadot is a mom.

Please buy me one.

Competent tickling: Gadot is a mom. ~ Crid at December 9, 2017 5:11 PM

Unwanted touching! No consent was given.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree is all.

If I were performing in a USO show, and someone came up to me and started twerking, I wouldn't care for it at all and would just as soon be left alone to complete my performance.

However, because I don't want to necessarily embarrass this other person, or make myself look like a total asshole by pushing them away or telling them to knock it off, or ridiculed because I'm expected to find this attention flattering, I would tolerate it to a certain degree, even though I would just as soon this upstager and distraction were in another country. Like North Korea.

What you don't seem to get is that there might have been some objections, but because men are expected to find this kind of attention flattering, and out of unwillingness to publicly embarrass someone else or make themselves look like jerks, her actions might have been tolerated, but by no means appreciated.

...men are expected to find this kind of attention flattering....

I think you're viewpoint here is colored by your own experiences more than you realize.

I really don't think it's the case anymore that men are expected to find a woman's attention flattering. I think it's perfectly acceptable today for a man to say he found (or even finds) a woman's attention unflattering or unwelcome.

Witness Mike Pence and his rule about being alone with a woman not his wife. Progressives were the only ones laughing at him and they quickly shut up when their own sacred cows got gored.

Witness David Letterman and his stalker. He was perfectly frank with this audience that her attention was un-nerving to him. And no one called him a wuss or impugned his masculinity.

I think one of those musicians saying he did not welcome Tweeden's antics or that she interfered with his playing would not be the career-ender you think it would be. YMMV.

Damn it. It should be "I think your" not "you're."

David Lettermans stalker was a troll living three states away who claimed he was harassing her with coded messages in his broadcasts

And even then you said "today" when all this behavior happened 5, 10, 20, & 40 years ago

Also, even with the cows being gored liberals as still pegging Pense and his rule as a form of sexual harassment just as bad as fondling an unwilling woman

Conan: I think you're viewpoint here is colored by your own experiences more than you realize.

Possibly, but I think it's more your viewpoint that's being colored by archaic notions of chivalry. It just seems to me that you're trying defend indefensible behavior because she's a woman.

Would this have been okay if she had been a man pawing the female performers?

It's been over two decades since this USO show. You may feel that it might have been appropriate to rebuff a woman's advances today, but was it that way in the 90s?