Has the #MeToo movement become a witch-hunt to a significant degree?

[F_Marturana]

Tell me why, as Catholics, we should not rightfully warn people that there are dangers to both their reputations AND their eternal souls when they rush into physical intimacies that are not appropriate to their state in life in the first place. Tell me why we shouldn’t be discouraging men and women from workplace behaviors that we know lead to fornication and adultery with people met at work. Don’t respond as an American who wants liberties and no boundaries. Respond as a Catholic who has concern for immortal souls.

I thought this part very important.

I wanted to add also how actually dangerous to have a one night stand. Often we are afraid to get on an elevator with a stranger. Sharing a drink or a dinner with someone makes them slightly more known than a stranger but not by much.

Not to mention diseases and pregnancy. Why put an unborn child at risk of being unwanted, unloved and possibly aborted? Why put yourself at risk for a disease that might not be curable?

 

[Theo520]

A few thoughts:

Al Franken is 66. He’s not a 22-year-old intern.

Al wasn’t messing with interns or any office staff, and he’s not too stupid to learn and change.

We are going through a cultural shift in this area and I’m suggesting we give low level offenders a chance at reform.

Being a senator is a position of immense power and influence with a six year term–senators get used to feeling untouchable. It’s very unlikely that HR training is going to have an impact on somebody his age and with his power.

Let his constituency replace him, that’s the way our Rule Of Law was designed to work. There were no charges against him.

The senate has historically been home to a lot of pervy guys. Strom Thurmond, for example, served for 48 years and was famous for groping and randomly kissing women. I once took a class on Washington reporting back in the 90s, and one of the tips shared by a female journalist was, never, ever get in an elevator with Strom Thurmond.

I thought I was very clear they deserved the wrath of moral outrage for non-criminal behavior, and the chance to change and not offend. If Strom was doing that behavior with Staff, it would likely be criminal. Otherwise it sounds like DC enabled Strom rather than reprimanding the behavior.

For an analogy or clarification, I’m also against most ‘zero tolerance’ policies in schools that expel students on their first violation.

It’s right for Democrats to put the reputation and future of their party ahead of loyalty to particular individuals, and I would heartily encourage Republicans to start doing the same thing. There are a lot of smart guys and gals out there who look good in a suit and who aren’t jailbait-chasers, gropers and harassers. Let’s find them!

It’s right for the voters to elect their reps. The role of the party would be in taking such a person off of power positions, but not making them resign just for caddish behavior. Only if the behavior persisted after being called out should extra steps be taken.

The Dems engaged in a witch hunt, hoping they could turn the moral outrage against Trump. Unfortunately, most of the witches they could find were in their party. I certainly don’t feel there was sincerity in their actions, just grandstanding.

 

[PetraG]

I wanted to add also how actually dangerous to have a one night stand. Often we are afraid to get on an elevator with a stranger. Sharing a drink or a dinner with someone makes them slightly more known than a stranger but not by much.

Not to mention diseases and pregnancy. Why put an unborn child at risk of being unwanted, unloved and possibly aborted? Why put yourself at risk for a disease that might not be curable?

God’s laws are not arbitrary. They are for our own good and for the good of the neighbors we ought to love as we love our very selves, even when those neighbors are strangers. Looking for a stranger for mutual illicit use is not a “victimless crime.” We do each other harm when we do that, even if no one has no “complaints” at the time. As Catholics, we do need to stand up for these truths. They aren’t just “religious” truths. They are truths about the human person.

 

[F_Marturana]

We are going through a cultural shift in this area and I’m suggesting we give low level offenders a chance at reform.

But this chance of reform though is how the priest abuse scandal came about. Not all priests committed rape. Some started out inappropriate and when complaints came against them, were sent to be reformed, and then sent out to other parishes.

I was discussing recently with my husband, if a priest who comes in regular contact with the Eucharist can hurt another person, what about the rest of the world. The priest abuse scandal was just the tip of the iceberg.

Al Franken resigned though on his own.

 

[PetraG]

Al wasn’t messing with interns or any office staff. He’s not to stupid to learn and change. We are going through a cultural shift in this area and I’m suggesting we give low level offenders a chance at reform.

Let his constituency replace him, that’s the way our Rule Of Law was designed to work. There were no charges against him.

I thought I was very clear they deserved the wrath of moral outrage for non-criminal behavior, and the chance to change and not offend. If Strom was doing that behavior with Staff, it would likely be criminal.

It’s right for the voters to elect their reps. The role of the party would be in taking such a person off of power positions, but not making them resign just for caddish behavior. Only if the behavior persisted after being called out should extra steps be taken.

The Dems engaged in a witch hunt, hoping they could turn the moral outrage against Trump. Unfortunately, most of the witches they could find were in their party. I certainly don’t feel there was sincerity in their actions, just grandstanding.

The Senate itself and the House itself were given the right by the framers of the Constitution to set moral and professional standards. They do not have to accept any behavior by persons elected to their deliberative body. When the states ratified the Constitution, they concurred with this wise standard.

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

It was within the constitutional authority of the Senate to have removed Al Franken, if they saw fit, without the consent of the voters who elected Sen. Franken. The voters are not the only ones witih a say.

More to the point, Sen. Al Franken saw his own behavior had robbed him of all moral authority, so he removed himself (although not without wishing that he wasn’t the only one removing himself). Sen. Packwood of Oregon also chose to resign before a case of sexual misconduct and abuse of power could come before the Senate. That was 1995,

It is an extremely high honor and privilege to serve as a Senator. It is a position of trust. No one should expect mulligans on clearly out-of-bounds transgressions any more than someone who has embezzled should expect another chance at minding a cash register.

 

[Theo520]

But this chance of reform though is how the priest abuse scandal came about. Not all priests committed rape. Some started out inappropriate and when complaints came against them, were sent to be reformed, and then sent out to other parishes.

I was discussing recently with my husband, if a priest who comes in regular contact with the Eucharist can hurt another person, what about the rest of the world. The priest abuse scandal was just the tip of the iceberg.

Al Franken resigned though on his own.

The Priests you reference were guilty of serious crimes, sending them away shielded them from prosecution. They were not guilty of low level transgression. Your analogy is completely wrong, you are comparing apples and oranges.

The priests weren’t even subjected to public outrage since it was kept hush hush. Some public outrage even on low level transgression serves a valuable correction function for both the offender and the larger community.

Al Franken resigned because he was forced to do so.

 

[PetraG]

The Priest’s you reference were guilty of serious crimes, sending them away shielded them from prosecution. They were not guilty of low level transgression.

They weren’t even subjected to public outrage since it was kept hush hush. Some public outrage on low level transgression serves a valuable correction function for both the offender and the larger community.

Al Franken resigned because he was forced to do so.

Who had the power to force Al Franken to resign? I think the truth forced Al Franken to resign–that and enough integrity that he did not care to sit in front of his peers and pretend that his conduct was tolerable. He knows that he wouldn’t vote that way, so what kind of argument did he have to defend himself?

The President, on the other hand, was very much up to a game of shamelessness-chicken with Mrs. Clinton. He knew she’s tolerated all he could be proven to have done and more from her husband. She had no moral high ground to accuse him, and he knew it.

Yes, I think #MeToo ought to apply to enablers like HRC, too. Of course it should.

 

[Theo520]

Who had the power to force Al Franken to resign? I think the truth forced Al Franken to resign.

ROFL, Al apologized but never even admitted to wrong doing.

There was no reason for him to resign except for all the Dem Senators that publicly asked him to resign. Didn’t you notice he resigned just after Nancy etal publicly asked him to resign???

I’m also not his supporter. I don’t like his politics and think he won the seat based on a faulty election. I just think that barring any criminal behavior, it should be left to his constituency to demand his resignation or just elect someone else next election.

 

[PetraG]

ROFL, Al apologized but never even admitted to wrong doing.

There was no reason for him to resign except for all the Dem Senators that publicly asked him to resign. Didn’t you notice he resigned after Nancy etal publicly asked him to resign???

How many people have asked the President to resign, LOL? It is a choice.

The irony of it was not lost on Al Franken, but he knew that the other Senators had the right to remove him directly just as Packwood knew it. If your own party says you need to go on your own unless you want to force us to remove you, then you have that choice. Al Franken chose not to be the center of a bipartisan effort to remove him. (Not every Senator ever brought up for removal has been removed, though.)

If someone told the President there were the votes to remove him for something, I fully expect him to dig in his heels and say, “I’d like to see you do it, because I am not resigning.”

 

[F_Marturana]

The Priest’s you reference were guilty of serious crimes, sending them away shielded them from prosecution. They were not guilty of low level transgression.

No. Not all. They weren’t sent away, some were sent to other parishes.

Read this article:

How the Boston Globe exposed the abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic church

The tenacity of Boston Globe journalists in uncovering the scandal of widespread sexual abuse by priests led to the current crisis in the Catholic church. And there's more to come

www.theguardian.com

 

[Theo520]

How many people have asked the President to resign, LOL? It is a choice.

It always comes back to Trump with libs, because he was ultimately the real target.

 

[PetraG]

It always comes back to Trump with libs, because he was ultimately the real target.

No, in this case I’m saying that Donald Trump knows when he’s forced to do something and when he’s not.

Take the choice to bring Bill Clinton’s accusers to the debate. There are a lot of people who wouldn’t do that, because of accusations against them. Donald Trump dug in and said, “Hey, you wanna go toe-to-toe on this? Let’s play chicken, because I think I know who ought to flinch first.”

It is nasty politics, but both sides decided pretty early on to have a nasty campaign. You play by the rules of the contest you’ve drawn or you stay out of the contest. Don’t go in for an honorable loss.

If the #MeToo movement is coming after Donald Trump, in fairness it has to go after HRC, too. Even if you argue she had no knowledge of assaults instead of consensual cheating, here is no doubt she knew how her husband was humiliating her by what he was doing with other women. She was complicit in hiding what he was like. If she had drawn a line and said she would make his disgusting actions public, would he have had a position of power to do that kind of thing for all those years? Of course not. He’d have cleaned up his act or else left politics. Al Franken, likewise, ought to have been called on his behavior years ago. He was not accused of a one-time misunderstanding, the kind of thing so many men are afraid of. He habitually abused his position of trust.

 

[Theo520]

What I see is your are deflecting the discussion to be about Trump.
Stick with Al Franken and I’ll respond.

 

[PetraG]

What I see is your are deflecting the discussion to be about Trump.

Stick with Al Franken and I’ll respond.

Fine…make it about HRC and Bill. My point about Trump is not sexual, but that he knows when he has a choice to cave into pressure and when that isn’t the kind of choice he has. He’s dealt with accusations and he’s dealt with actual legal judgments that didn’t go his way and he’s dealt with the choice to go to court or settle. I’m saying he knows the difference.

The point is that the issue is habitual and serious abuse of a position of power, not a one-time misunderstanding about what the boundaries are. Sen. Franken had a pattern of bad behavior, not a one-time mistake.

 

[Theo520]

You are still deflecting. I also don’t wan’t to make it about HRC and Bill.

Stick with Al Franken and I’ll respond.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I think Al Franken should have remained because he wasn’t convicted of anything at all. There were just six or so accusations, none of the rape. When the presumption of innocence goes out the window, the US is really in trouble.

 

[PetraG]

You are still deflecting. I also don’t wan’t to make it about HRC and Bill.

Stick with Al Franken and I’ll respond.

The point is that the issue is habitual and serious abuse of a position of power, not a one-time misunderstanding about what the boundaries are. Sen. Franken quibbled with this accusation or that, and there may have been accusers who were bandwagoning, but he had a pattern of seriously disrepectful behavior unbecoming a Senator, this was not a one-time mistake, and he could not deny it.

and

The Senate itself and the House itself were given the right by the framers of the Constitution to set moral and professional standards. They do not have to accept any behavior by persons elected to their deliberative body. When the states ratified the Constitution, they concurred with this wise standard.

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

It was within the constitutional authority of the Senate to have removed Al Franken, if they saw fit, without the consent of the voters who elected Sen. Franken. The voters are not the only ones witih a say.

More to the point, Sen. Al Franken saw his own behavior had robbed him of all moral authority, so he removed himself (although not without wishing that he wasn’t the only one removing himself). Sen. Packwood of Oregon also chose to resign before a case of sexual misconduct and abuse of power could come before the Senate. That was 1995,

It is an extremely high honor and privilege to serve as a Senator. It is a position of trust. No one should expect mulligans on clearly out-of-bounds transgressions any more than someone who has embezzled should expect another chance at minding a cash register.

I don’t think a Senator removed for what is undeniably bad behavior can complain that he was asked to leave and someone else wasn’t. He doesn’t have an excuse for what he did. He deserves to be asked to leave. He has to know that in this world not every serious foul draws a flag, not every serious crime is prosecuted and that every single person sitting in a prison could point to someone else not incarcerated who got off scott free. That doesn’t make it unfair that they got the consequences they got.

Those who think their position of power gives them the right to take liberties that no one in a lower position would dream of taking ought to take note. It is time that there not be a pretense of a higher standard for those in a position of trust. It is time that the higher standard be real, and that means that it must really be enforced.

 

[Theo520]

No. Not all. They weren’t sent away, some were sent to other parishes.

Read this article:

You are still comparing apples and oranges, the Priests were guilty of serious felonies, not an inappropriate grope during a photo shoot.

They were sent away from the parish where they offended and likely there was no public awareness in the old or new parish.

There is absolutely no parallel between Al Franken and abusive Catholic priests.

A comparison would be more apropo between the Priests and Harvey Weinstein or that Today Show guy. In both their cases those around them enabled ongoing felony assaults to occur.

 

[Theo520]

How have you construed Al Franken as abusing his position of power? None of his office staff have made complaints, the transgression took place in a county fair with a stranger, not an employee or someone over whom he had power.

Since there was nothing illegal, it’s up to his constituency to decide if Al is the type of man they want representing them as a Senator.

 

[PetraG]

How have you construed Al Franken as abusing his position of power? None of his office staff have made complaints, the transgression took place in a county fair with a stranger, not an employee or someone over whom he had power.

Since there was nothing illegal, it’s up to his constituency to decide if Al is the type of man they want representing them as a Senator.

Like Charlie Rose, he had a position of power as an entertainer. Some of the accusations, meanwhile, occurred when he was a Senator or running for the Senate.

Sorry, but his peers in the Senate, who have the constituional authority to decide when one of their members has behaved in what the Constitution describes as a “disorderly” way, did not appear to agree with you. Newt Gingrinch has come to his defense, but there was no quorum of GOP senators saying, “We’re not going to have a sitting Senator run out of the Congress for behavior that isn’t illegal.” The standard is not high crimes and misdemeanors, that much is clear. If it were, I think a third of the Senate would have been clear that there were no charges that called for his removal, even if they were true.

Do I think he would have been rermoved if there were no photograph of the man gleefully placing his hands on Leanne Tweeden’s breast while she slept AND a picture with his hand on Arianna Huffington’s breast AND another picture of him “playfulling” trying to get a hand on Huffington’s rear end AND another with his hand on Joy Behar’s breast, too? I have my doubts.

When the day came when public sentiment came to say, “No. You don’t get to do that to women just because you are a [Senator, comedian, on-air personality, famous producer, fill-in-the-blank],” that was the day that the chickens were set to come home to roost with Al Franken and his wandering hands. That doesn’t mean he didn’t know he shouldn’t do what he was doing. It mean he thought the day would never come when someone would say, “You knew better then, you have always known better, you just thought the rules didn’t apply to you and you aren’t going to get away with that.”

No, he should not get a mulligan now that it is clear that the rules he should always have abided by out of decency are going to be enforced by public opinion. No.