Al Gore - Officially being investigated for sexual assault

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
E.Tamaran
Al Gore - Officially being investigated for sexual assault

Looks like Sven was right to make a thread about this story.

 

PORTLAND, Ore. - Police said Wednesday they are reopening an investigation into an Oregon massage therapist's allegations that former Vice-President Al Gore groped her at an upscale hotel in 2006.

In a brief statement, the Portland Police Bureau did not say why it was reopening the investigation. Police earlier said they considered the case closed because there was no evidence.

A spokeswoman for Gore said the former vice-president "unequivocally and emphatically" denied making unwanted sexual advances toward the woman and that he welcomed the investigation.

"Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore," spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said.

She also said "the Gores cannot comment on every defamatory, misleading and inaccurate story generated by tabloids."

The massuese alleges Gore made unwanted sexual advances during a massage appointment on Oct. 24, 2006, at the downtown Hotel Lucia, where Gore was reportedly registered as "Mr. Stone." Gore was in Portland to deliver a speech on climate change.

The story first broke when the National Enquirer reported the allegations a week ago.

Police last week said the woman's lawyer came to them with the allegations in 2006 but that the woman cancelled appointments with detectives. The case reopened in January 2009, when detectives interviewed the woman but determined there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

According to transcripts of the 2009 interview, the masseuse described the allegations at length. She said Gore groped, kissed and pinned her down on a bed. She told Gore he was acting like a "crazed sex poodle," according to the transcript.

Gore and his wife announced June 1 they were separating.

 

 http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/us-police-re-opening-inves...

remind remind's picture

E.Tamaran wrote:
Looks like Sven was right to make a thread about this story.

 

"The story first broke when the National Enquirer reported the allegations a week ago".

 

No actually, it does not look as if sven shoulda...the  article is referring to the National Enquirer as the source, who paid her a bundle,  and it indicates quite clearly that it should not be brought here, this is an alternative media site not the msm, and not the National Enquirer.

 

Moreover, if it was going to be discussed here, it would be done from a feminst analysis, not a baiting, nor sensationalist perspective. Nor even to make a point about omething other

E.Tamaran

Well the police are now actively investigating a former US Vice President. I mean, if Dick Cheney were being investigated for corruption I'm sure it would be Rabble-worthy.

writer writer's picture

That's a big if! Still, I'd really like a thread that discusses the fact that, generally, these things are taken as isolated incidents, if they are covered at all. Yet the problem is chronic. It's not just former vice presidents of the U.S.A. copping a feel and forcing their tongues down our throats.

E.Tamaran

True. But it's very very rare for former Vice Presidents to be investigated for anything. Spiro Agnew maybe...

writer writer's picture

Nixon was a former VP *and* president. Double whammy!

E.Tamaran

So were Bush Sr, Harry truman, Gerald Ford, and Lyndon Johnson

KenS

writer wrote:

Yet the problem is chronic. It's not just former vice presidents of the U.S.A. copping a feel and forcing their tongues down our throats.

Here's my hunch about how this comes to light. Men in positions of power are more likely to push themselves onto women. And the idea doesn't just pop into their heads "hey I'm powerful, I can get away with this." That is just one of the ways that their chummy little sub-culture breeds the heightened likelihood to push themselves on women.

So this is going on all the time. Most of the time the women get caught up in a web of silencing. But even then the silencing isnt total... people hear, they just dont do anything about it.

But when the men talked about are political figures, that usually ignored talk is going to come to the ears of people who have a muckracking interest. Nothing to do with anyone caring about the women involved.

writer writer's picture

What do you mean by, "Men in positions of power?" That's a very big bunch of men, where I come from.

My problem is that, when it comes to light, it is treated as an isolated case. It is not. I would like to see our culture get around to seeing it for what it is, and how common it is. And challenge men to stop it.

KenS

I did say that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Just coming at it in a different direction. Which may be circuitous. Some of us are challenged that way.

writer writer's picture

Men in power include fathers, uncles, friends of family, older brothers, cousins ... and the usual suspects (bosses, authority figures, etc.). A very, very big pool.

KenS

I suspect there's some significant differentiation in that big pool.

That men in intimate relationships are much more likely to be restrained by taboos, and the simple fact that it requires more 'dehumanization' to objectify your daughter, neice, etc.

While in the realm of bosses and authority figures there are actually male sub-cultural supports that make it much easier for you to abuse women. I dont inhabit circles where that could be such a casual thing. Very different story for powerful politicians. [And I've known of enough display of it in the not so powerful ones too.] That doesnt mean I am not also a product of that male world that enables the abuse of women. But I do think the milieux of amle bosses makes it 'hyper likely'.... the more so the bigger the boss.

And that would not correspond at all with the popular culture idea of 'who would do that'.

E.Tamaran

Another dynamic is the lack of complete support for the (alledged) victim. It takes courage to publicly admit you were sexually asaulted, especially if it was from a very powerful man. I remember the Duke rape case and how she was given support by all the major feminist and human rights organisations. For some reason this time it's not happening. The only explanation is because the (alledged) perp is considered to be a "good guy", saving the earth etc. It's in the greater good that this (alledged) crime gets swept under the bear skin. So all those feminist organizations that would have jumped into this had it been any other powerful man are holding their noses and giving mr Gore a pass.

writer writer's picture

Quote:
That men in intimate relationships are much more likely to be restrained by taboos, and the simple fact that it requires more 'dehumanization' to objectify your daughter, neice, etc.

KenS, this is where I get super pissed off, because you really don't know what you are talking about, and become part of the problem. This is exactly why I don't like the obsession about the sins of the famous. Where do you think most of the abuse comes from? Why do you think the more powerful men think they can get away with it? Because most men get away with it. Every fucking day.

E.Tamaran, I was with you until you chose to dump on feminists for this.

E.Tamaran

writer wrote:

E.Tamaran, I was with you until you chose to dump on feminists for this.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But where has the NOW been, or Hillary Clinton? So far they haven't made any comments in the MSM. I think you will agree that had it been Mr Cheney being investigated for sexual assault they would have been all over this. In fact, they were all over that Spitzer guy, and some other governor who went to columbia to see his GF on taxpayer money. And I think they were right to do so. For some reason though they have decided to give Mr Gore a pass.

KenS

We are talking about a popular culture mythology of this kind of abuse of women as exceptional.  

 

Part of that mythology- nobody saying the most important part- but an important part of that mythology is that it is done by 'bad men.' And I'll bet you anything that the image of the bad man is of some working class or lumpen guy.

 

When everything we know about the abuse of women and male culture is that the more power, the more likely abuse is.

 

We're coming at this from different directions writer, but we're still both talking about male power and the effects. I am also talking about the concentration of male power. That does not make me someone who is excusing or trivialising the nature of male power in general.

writer writer's picture

Quote:
Part of that mythology- nobody saying the most important part- but an important part of that mythology is that it is done by 'bad men.' And I'll bet you anything that the image of the bad man is of some working class or lumpen guy.

Exactly. And that includes the bullshit mythology that fathers, friends and family members are less likely to do this shit. They are more likely to. Christ, please stop talking off the top of your head about things you know nothing about.

It includes the bullshit notion that somehow you are separate from the bad people who do these bad things. You are surrounded by them. They are everywhere. They are on your street, in your family, at your workplace, in your community. They are invisible, because our culture is silencing and oppressive.

remind remind's picture

writer wrote:
Men in power include fathers, uncles, friends of family, older brothers, cousins ... and the usual suspects (bosses, authority figures, etc.). A very, very big pool.

 

80 years from being a chattal object is not so far in some cases...or perhaps in most...

 

Sure enough we women appear on the surface of things, at least in the so called western world, to have gained some equity, women in places of high power, and all of that. But scratch that surface flash and glitter away, and it disappears almost completely.

 

How tied society is to the rights of the male penis is mind boggling, to me. It is like the sexist discourse that breaks out here, all too often,  hardly anyone notices. And most shrug, I believe mentally, when it is pointed out as "in no big deal".

 

It is a big deal, in fact, it could be the biggest deal, IMV.  Sometimes my heart clenches with the enormity of it all, and I wonder if it will ever resume normal beating.

In the other thread I was just reading my heart clenched, and I could not repond, too many memories, too many triggers, and no safe space to go. Mind scrambling all it could think to do was; "walk away".

But now in this thread, there is no place to walk... life reality for women and girls confront me.

 

skdadl said:

Quote:
I know that a lot of feminists believe we should stop hiding behind our physical vulnerabilities and just make ourselves strong and brave. I semi-wish I could think that way, but I can't -- I'm too old, not strong enough, head not in right place, easily intimidated everywhere but in words.

..was once such a feminist, perhaps  still am "underneath it all", but I face the reality that my presence and strength will not always be what they are... so am left with the feeling of vulnerablity, that I now recognize many women endure, perhaps throughout their entire lifetime. I have been blamming the victim, without realizing it.

 

then you, writer responded with your experience at a meeting where no female leadership voices were present. That happening was unpardonable, just as rabble's conducting a poll without female representation in it, was.

 

This means to me, that our words, as elder feminists, are very important. Especially our words challenging the male dominance on the left. If we cannot get our supposed allies to see their sexism and their re-enforcement of it, and cannot get women on the left to see their unconscious acceptance of it, we sure as hell can't get those on the right to.

 

 

 

 

writer writer's picture

Sadly, a man sexually assaulting a woman is neither international news nor is it politics - as the man and woman in question were not politicians at the time.

It is every day every day every fucking day. I have an idea. Let's make this a thread about how the horrendous regularity of sexual assault and harassment *should* be international news and is, in fact very political, as it is a core condition of our continued oppression.

George Victor

Do we really need this, ET...?   Or Sven.  Or anyone.  Jesus what are we descending to here? 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Al Gore might not be called out by NOW, etc, because he's a Democrat. It's like Clinton and Paula Jones.

So what?

I've never taken feminist cues from mainstream US feminist organizations.

What writer and remind have said is true. And just to re-emphasize, KenS, because I know your heart is in the right place, the majority of physical, sexual and emotional abuse that women are subjected to is perpetuated by someone in their lives or related to them, a lover/partner/husband, or family member. This crosses all class and ethnic and religious lines.

In other words, while yes the "stranger danger" warnings to women has many elements of classism and racism, women know, from our own experiences, that there is no "typical abuser". An abuser is our uncle, our brother, our ex-boyfriend. If you'd like me to recommend some books or websites, KenS, please message me.

skdadl

George Victor wrote:

Do we really need this, ET...?   Or Sven.  Or anyone.  Jesus what are we descending to here? 

I don't believe that Sven has contributed to this thread. ???

KenS

We live in a very classist society. One where contemporary popular culture has gone a long way to simply erasing the working class- we dont exist, except as Archie Bunkers. And Babble is way too much a reflection of that. Classisst comments, more likley exprssions of classist ignorance, that just float by here. More problematic than that though is our absence. We don't exist. Or when we do, its to be patronized.

I have to watch that go by here more often than I have it forced in my face in the wide world. And its OK, I've been adapting to it my whole life. It doesnt often get me agitated. Much more frequently I channel into figuring things out- looking at what other people dont.

What I said about what especially powerful men do- and this is who is case relevant here- is an extension of general analysis about male power and the abuse of women. Its a class concious or class sentsitive extension of  the larger analysis; not a replacement for the general understanding, much less an attempt to minimize or 'contextualize' the extensiveness of male power.

But look back to the beginning of the thread. From the beginning, Writer treated it as I was replacing or minimizing the power of all men. And continued to do so after I said I was talking about something different. Pardon me for not bowing down completely to your notion of the primacy of the life and struggles that impact you.

I can understand that my comments- later on comments- about power in intimate relations were taken as they were. I know that they are more common and I didnt mean to say otherwise. Frankly, I've never thought before about any implications my notion of boss /authority figure class differences would have on more general understandings of male power. I was just putting the latter out, and suddenly I'm aggressively challenged why to even think about such a thing. I wouldnt be surprised if sexual abuse of male power in family relations is more common in upper classes. But I really don't know anything about that, so I wouldnt say so.

I should have just stuck to that I was saying something different. But aggressive challenging does funny things to you.

"How dare you say [what i THINK you said]!" 

There is way too much of that on this list, and I'm not in the mood to apologise for being another butt of it. Go read what happened to Yiwah in the can we discuss Israel and Palestine thread. So many people were sure what she was saying, based on god knows what. "Revealed tendencies." 

Nobody asked me to explain myself, or ask what I am saying. Just assumptions made because of what I did not say.

Writer may have had very good personal reasons to particularly question what I was getting at. But I wasnt questioned. Its always shoot first and ask questions later around here.

We already chased away Yiwah as far as I can see. Long ago I made a policy of staying away from whole forums on subjects that are important to me. And I realized that I've been gradually voting with my feet to narrow that still further.

To be clear- I don't think I was treated in any despicable manner. Probably just a shortened fuse over something that happens all the time. But I definitely think the way Yiwah was treated was very retrograde. I've said so and havent seen a shred of reflection on that. Thats a lot of where the shortened fuse comes from.

George Victor

skdadl wrote:

George Victor wrote:

Do we really need this, ET...?   Or Sven.  Or anyone.  Jesus what are we descending to here? 

I don't believe that Sven has contributed to this thread. ???

 

June 29, 2010 - 11:42pm (new) #1 (permalink)

 

Is Al Gore a sexual predator ...or is his accuser lying?  After reading the accuser's police statement, it's hard to tell.

Apparently, a friend of the accuser said she should remain silent and "just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."

 

 

You have to go back a couple of days to find the old Natiional Enquirer reader at work, Skdadl.

You'll notice how he gets in his old climate change denial position as well.  He's a true prince.

 

 

Stargazer

This thread isn't about Yiwah, it is about Al Gore (not really).

 

Hugs to remind and writer. We've all had enough of this bullshit and it is hard to remain calm.

KenS

Youre right Stargazer. I'm currently very pissed off by the endemic to this board "I know what you were [really] saying" and shoot first ask questions later. And that few appear to care. But if thats my beef, I can take it elsewhere.

For here and this thread in its own right, chalk me up as unapologetic. Considering the circumstances, not even for appearing to say something that I know both to be incorrect, and that can be legitmately read in a way that could be expected to piss people off.

remind remind's picture

Yes, men are so little heard and understood here....

Tommy_Paine

We live in a very classist society. One where contemporary popular culture has gone a long way to simply erasing the working class- we dont exist, except as Archie Bunkers. And Babble is way too much a reflection of that. Classisst comments, more likley exprssions of classist ignorance, that just float by here. More problematic than that though is our absence. We don't exist. Or when we do, its to be patronized.

I have to watch that go by here more often than I have it forced in my face in the wide world. And its OK, I've been adapting to it my whole life. It doesnt often get me agitated. Much more frequently I channel into figuring things out- looking at what other people dont.

 

I'm about as working class as they come, Ken, and that's not my experience here at babble.   Maybe a bit, but it's hardly comparable to levels of oppression we see exemplified on this board on other bases, and I wouldn't even bring it up.

 

And, I prefer a class analysis to every issue.  Except this one.  I don't think sexual assault is a class issue at all.  It's a gender issue, period.   End of story.

 

.

 

I think, Ken that if you are a decent guy who wouldn't hurt a woman, you kinda think that's the overall norm, that the vast majority of your peers are from the same mold.   Had parents like you and I had, that taught you that being a man, and being bigger and stronger meant that you stood up for those not so endowed, and that exploiting those advantages gained by accident of birth is unthinkably, despicably, wrong.

But, this can't be true, Ken.   Not if a quarter of the things women in my life have told me about what they have endured at the hands of men they knew are true. 

 

And I believe them.  The ones I don't love are friends and they don't lie to me.

 

And, I think if you are like me, it's difficult to come to grips with that.  I mean, I know what I want to do about that, but that's just another manifestation of the same problem.

 

What are you teaching your sons.   What are you teaching your grandsons.  What are you teaching your nephews and grand nephews.

 

 

 

 

 

George Victor

Al is clearly guilty. ( Chalk up another one, Sven.........Sven?    By gosh he must love the back and forth that he initiates...and then leaves.

getoffoil

She says people pleaded with her not to go public with her account.

Obviously the press would be all over it and the climate bill was coming up and it would be more fuel for the tea baggers, and other raging Republicans and the  climate change naysayers.

My opinion of Al Gore was greatly diminished when I read about his lavish properties and lifestyle.

Unless environmentalists use electric bikes and take public transit,park and ride or atleast carpool, I have little respect for them.

My slogan is: A Prius is NOT a solution.

Sexual harrassment must be made public.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

While this does need to be investigated, we need to be aware of the fact that Sven's motive here was clearly not concern about violence or sexual abuse towards women.

Sven was starting his thread(from what I could see)solely to bait feminists for not denouncing Al Gore fast enough to suit him.  Sven's implication is that Gore was given a pass on this that a conservative politician would not have received, and I don't know that that's the case.

Especially since Al Gore is no longer a politician and no feminist organizations would have any reason to believe they had something to lose by denouncing him.

If Gore turns out to be guilty, nail him to the wall on this.  But it's NOT political.

 

KenS

As to classism on Babble Tommy, maybe you don't mind being rendered invisible. But thats a discussion for another place.

As to the rest, you don't know anything about me. Nor have I denied anyone's stories or experiences. And what could you possibly know about what I teach? You must have imputed something. That is popular around here.

writer writer's picture

Quote:
That men in intimate relationships are much more likely to be restrained by taboos, and the simple fact that it requires more 'dehumanization' to objectify your daughter, neice, etc.

Want to talk about taking things personally? Being erased? As a survivor of incest, this is beyond offensive. As a politicized survivor of incest, knowing how common I am as a survivor of incest, this is when I kind of want to kill anyone who would spout such erasing shit. And then insist that there is nothing to apologize for. And then mewl about how it's so unfair. This is when I can't read what you type anymore.

It's what you wrote, KenS. It's what it does to people you would presume to speak for. To speak over. Own it.

It's that simple.

pookie

George Victor wrote:

Al is clearly guilty. ( Chalk up another one, Sven.........Sven?    By gosh he must love the back and forth that he initiates...and then leaves.

WTF are you talking about. Why not direct your words at the OP of THIS thread if you think it is unworthy of discussion. It is not like Swen pulled the topic from out of the blue.
Talk about baiting.

KenS

Tommy_Paine wrote:

What are you teaching your sons.   What are you teaching your grandsons.  What are you teaching your nephews and grand nephews.

I dont have sons. I do have daughters. There is also my wife. My wife's sisters who I see a lot of. My own who I see more of than my brothers. Going along with having daughters, neices I see more of than nephews.

And did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the reason I focused in on what bosses can do to a woman, and why its so easy for them, is because its very personal and close to the bone?

Of course not. Because you've alread read who I am. Including what cant matter to me like it matters to you.

Share some smug hugs around. They are on the house.

For writer, its obviously different for you, and could be for others too. And I am sorry for how my words effected you.

You attacked me before I said that. Demanded I erase what happened to me because of what I should have said instead. I refused and still think that is right. But I should have stuck to the simple point I was making, and that it did not interfere with yours, the larger point.

Instead I tried to explain around a difference I hadnt thought of before. Which is dubious in the best of times. And more than a bad idea when you are tripping into what easily could be personal.

But in my books, people should also not be heedlessly and baselessly attacked, nor should anyone be surprised when immediate and harsh attacks, instead of questions, dont produce the best discussion.

Tommy_Paine

 

We all have our perspective based on what is currently happening to us, or what has happened in the past.  Unfortunately for a lot of reasons it's difficult to share that information for a lot of people in a venue like this. Your's truly being no exception, and you are right, Ken, while I try hard to read between the lines of other posters I didn't extend that courtesy to you.

 

I've never mastered properly managing anger into something constructive.  This time it came out all smugged up, I guess.

 

But now that I can see your point more clearly, I have to point out that while a lot people point to a "root cause" on an issue, and you and I often see class issues being the point of furthest reduction, and rightly so,  I think this is an instance where it's the other way around, that when an Al Gore or someone famous is accused or found guilty of sexual assault, we may view it as a class issue,  because the courts are a potent weapon against us in the class war.  And people in positions of power get cut much more slack than, someone with less power.   But that's not where the primary problem exists.

 

It's a gender issue, that's the point of furthest reduction on this.

Maysie Maysie's picture

KenS,

writer's first responses to you in this thread were not attacking you. Her post at #14 was a challenge to something blatantly incorrect that you were assuming as fact. 

Women spend our lives living with either the threat, possibility and/or the reality of sexual assault. We know more about this (intellectually and experientially) than most men do.

As for your original point about men in positions of power in the workplace, it's absolutely true. But you might not understand that women can also be sexually harassed/intimidated/attacked by a man in the workplace who does not have structural workplace power over her, because sexism can override that. Sexism, racism and classism have ways of overriding, intersecting and reinforcing each other all the time.

remind remind's picture

And what has totally mind boggled me, is that it does get better when you get on the high side of middle age. The threat of/or implied sexual intimidation, I mean.

Guess I had an ageist mental construct about it and thought crap like that would stop later in life.

 

And you know, I have these tangled thoughts that go through me when it does. First impact is a sensation of feeling sick to my stomach and my jaw freezes in that pre-vomitting spastic kinda way, and a tunnell of awareness forms.

 

And reading something here, that is the word equivalent to sexist body language and behaviour, causes the same type of body mind response. Can't help it, and really don't have to help it, as it is NOT my fault that men are sexist, either consciously or un.

Am not going to dull my senses in order to accommodate men's desire to be supremist and sexist. Nor make apologies for immediate perceptions thereof, and my response to it. And here I will note that I do often ignore it when it happens here or suppress the full awareness response.

In fact, it gets worse, when men take offense, and start throwing up anecdotals for themselves, as really it is to reassure themselves, and not the women here perceiving, that if they were sexist all the women in their life would tell them so. Meanwhile, the reality could be, not saying it is, is that they might not be getting that feedback, as they dominate all the women they think/believe would tell them so.

Our roles in society are so ingrained into us, that most times we all just automatically perform in them, without depth of thought. Most women, I know at any rate, long ago numbed our response selves in order to function without continual anger and disgust, because we have to function in daily life.

E.Tamaran

Would you like me to delete the post?

E.Tamaran

deleted after Remind's comments

George Victor

pookie wrote:

George Victor wrote:

Al is clearly guilty. ( Chalk up another one, Sven.........Sven?    By gosh he must love the back and forth that he initiates...and then leaves.

WTF are you talking about. Why not direct your words at the OP of THIS thread if you think it is unworthy of discussion. It is not like Swen pulled the topic from out of the blue. Talk about baiting.

 

Hey Pookie.  ET speaks to Sven's earlier thread in starting this one:

"Looks like Sven was right to make a thread about this story."

 

You haven't noticed Sven's modus operandi? Of course he "pulled the topic from out of the blue." And his rolling-eyed dig at environmentalists showed his motivation.

 

Neither of them were "right" in setting off enmity between the sexes, and I can't understand the ease with which folks are sucked into a bitter exchange by people who are throwbacks to the medieval bearpit...

al-Qa'bong

I suppose this is what babble looks like to many observers:

 

Wouldn't you agree, Gentle Ben?

remind remind's picture

thank you, I appreciate and respect that you did that.

Sven Sven's picture

This is great.  I get criticized by some when I actually participate in threads...but then, remarkably, I even get the raspberries when I don't participate in a thread! Tongue out

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Well, glad it's working for ya, Svenster!

Sven Sven's picture

This is a bit of thread drift but since so many people in this thread have attributed motives to me on this subject, I would like to give a few examples of attempted mind reading being displayed here:

George Victor wrote:

You'll notice how [Sven] gets in his old climate change denial position as well.

My rollie-eyes, if you must know, was actually intended to indicate how silly the accuser’s friend was the hypothesize that bringing this matter to the police would somehow destroy, or even significantly damage, the climate-change movement.  I think it will do no such thing.

Ken Burch wrote:

While this does need to be investigated, we need to be aware of the fact that Sven's motive here was...

[SNIP]

Sven was starting his thread (from what I could see) solely to bait feminists for not denouncing Al Gore fast enough to suit him.

This is yet another attempt at mind reading – and a poor one at that.  But, I don’t really blame you for being off the mark in your mind-reading attempt (after all, I don’t believe anyone can actually read someone else’s mind).  What I do criticize you for, however, is your belief that you can actually read minds.  You have no idea what my “motive” was – or wasn’t – do you Ken?

My actual motive was that no one had noted this story about a significant political figure and after first hearing about it, I figured it would be a big story – and, in fact, this story may turn out to “have legs”.

Oh, as far as the comments go which assert that Gore is not a “political” figure now that he no longer holds elected office, since when has that been the definition of “political”?  He obviously remains very politically active – and he continues to hold significant political sway on many issues.   He’s still a political figure.  Now, that doesn’t mean that the accusations were politically motivated (that’s a separate subject – and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are politically motivated).

George Victor wrote:

pookie wrote:

WTF are you talking about. Why not direct your words at the OP of THIS thread if you think it is unworthy of discussion. It is not like [Sven] pulled the topic from out of the blue. Talk about baiting.

You haven't noticed Sven's modus operandi? Of course he "pulled the topic from out of the blue." And his rolling-eyed dig at environmentalists showed his motivation.

GV, please see my comments above about my presumed “motivation”.

George Victor wrote:

Neither [ET nor Sven] [was] "right" in setting off enmity between the sexes...

Some posters decided to shift the focus of the news story to a broader-scoped discussion.  That’s fine.  But, your statement implies that ET and I intentionally “set off” that debate – i.e., that it was our desire to see the debate move in that direction.  If I had desired to put the Gore story in that broader context, I would have.

GENERAL COMMENT: A lot of “enmity,” as GV says, would be avoided if people would stop trying to divine hidden intentions and unspoken motivations behind the words that posters write (not just my words – but the words of any poster, as it happen all the time here).  The result is usually a flare-up of anger (because, after all, no one here can read anyone’s mind and the attributed motivation or intent (usually an evil or otherwise nefarious motivation or intent) is more likely wrong that correct).

 

Sean in Ottawa

Fair enough Sven.

However, both Remind and Writer have said some very important things in this thread. They do not need to be added to or debated. They can be acknowledged. I can't presume to add to them but I would like to acknowledge their importance and I am glad I read them.

If I can add to a different comment though: when we speak of power it is more power over the victim that is relevant not power in general.

KenS

I went off half-cocked at writer the other day. And the timing I 'picked' to do that is unfortunate.

My real issue is that I'm obviously fed-up with the Babble dynamic of "discussion". Apparently so much so that I react to it even when there is no evidence of it.

Let alone the distraction I provided.

writer writer's picture

You are fed up with it, so in this thread you initiated the very dynamic you indicate you do not like. This is a particularly nasty cycle.

An apology would be grand.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

writer wrote:
Why do you think the more powerful men think they can get away with it? Because most men get away with it. Every fucking day.

 

Hold on a minute there ... I have no problem with saying it's a pervasive and widespread and that it happens every day ... but to accuse the majority of males of being serial rapists is plainly absurd (and sexist). I don't believe I am abnormal because I've never raped a woman! Are you saying I am? Maybe I'm parsing you incorrectly but that is how it's coming across.

remind remind's picture

well read again as you read it incorrectly.

Pages