|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2017 12:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 12:37 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 12:17 Artisreal wrote:
Dude, you can take the overwhelming majority of scientists at face value and accept climate change to be real.
Just read a IPCC report. And please don't come about with the stupidly misused weather is not climate.
regarding your questioning whether universities creat useful stuff or not:
The anwer to that is to be taken into context of what the respondee considers useful, thus it's higly subjective and a rather tame argument to make. You're also incredibly vague of what you mean so it's hard do understand what exactly your point is. To me it seems like everything non marketable isn't useful by your standards, but that might be just me. When literally more than half of studies in fields like medicine and psychology can't be replicated, it's not at all a stretch to conclude that some money has been wasted in academia. Esp when most professors are spending minimal attention on teaching and justifying it by emphasizing their focus on research that more often than not can't be replicated. An extremely uneducated claim. Replication failure is correlated with how much human factor you involve. In other words, the more you're getting away from the "hard science" and are studying things like human interaction, behavior, or the effects of things on humans, the more you'll see replication error. However, there is significantly less error when it comes to a lot of the initial trials in medicine, and when you get away from fields like social and developmental psychology and focus more on clinical psychology and cognitive psychology. Claims about "over half of all studies" just make you lose all credibility when the number is significantly lower.
Source
Who's losing credibility? This is literally my field, and I'm by no means the only person talking about this problem.
|
On November 20 2017 12:59 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 12:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 20 2017 12:37 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 12:17 Artisreal wrote:
Dude, you can take the overwhelming majority of scientists at face value and accept climate change to be real.
Just read a IPCC report. And please don't come about with the stupidly misused weather is not climate.
regarding your questioning whether universities creat useful stuff or not:
The anwer to that is to be taken into context of what the respondee considers useful, thus it's higly subjective and a rather tame argument to make. You're also incredibly vague of what you mean so it's hard do understand what exactly your point is. To me it seems like everything non marketable isn't useful by your standards, but that might be just me. When literally more than half of studies in fields like medicine and psychology can't be replicated, it's not at all a stretch to conclude that some money has been wasted in academia. Esp when most professors are spending minimal attention on teaching and justifying it by emphasizing their focus on research that more often than not can't be replicated. An extremely uneducated claim. Replication failure is correlated with how much human factor you involve. In other words, the more you're getting away from the "hard science" and are studying things like human interaction, behavior, or the effects of things on humans, the more you'll see replication error. However, there is significantly less error when it comes to a lot of the initial trials in medicine, and when you get away from fields like social and developmental psychology and focus more on clinical psychology and cognitive psychology. Claims about "over half of all studies" just make you lose all credibility when the number is significantly lower. SourceWho's losing credibility? This is literally my field, and I'm by no means the only person talking about this problem.
I never said you were the only person; it's a very prevalent conversation in the scientific community. I'm in that community and work with this topic all the time. However, blanket claims about entire fields used to invalidate them just screams of gross hyperbole that makes you seem unreasonable to converse with.
|
I fail to see how any of mozoku's criticism on scientific research has to do with a left-right political divide amongst the people funding the programs or doing the research. As if these problems would not exist if all research was done by right-wing people. It is the nature of the research and other factors unrelated to political alignment of the researchers that are the problem.
But when your representatives and appointed officials actively deny some of the very basics from evolution to the age of the earth, then you've got a science problem. Rick Perry, who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and thus cannot believe in the concept of radiocarbon dating, is in charge of your nuclear energy programs. I mean, really. It's nothing short of idiotic.
|
On November 20 2017 12:07 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2017 09:24 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 07:35 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On November 20 2017 07:09 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:34 Adreme wrote:On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Science.
Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based I get that you like to make statements that are nothing more then empty talking points with no basis in reality but you do realize that this administration is the one hiring non-scientists for jobs that used to only go to scientists and trying to purge scientists from various panels. That isnt some debatable point by the way its a thing they are actively doing because there solution when science disagrees with there position is to silence the scientists. I respond to partisan talking points with partisan talking points sometimes. Particularly when the author pretends to be objective. One can very objectively point out that one party (to which they may have a partisan bias independent of the commentary itself) has notably worse policies regarding say, scientific publication, education and application, than the other. That isn't a partisan talking point, that's having a basic grasp of reality. I'm in general agreement that the Democratic party is probably on average more "pro-science", but it's certainly more complicated than an "objective fact." The Democrats are definitely more willing to fund science and like to market themselves as "pro-science", sure. In practice though, the "scientific" left-wing institutions are in a definite rough patch. Academia is in the midst of a replication crisis largely funded by taxpayer dollars (yeah, what a great use of funds...), and these "scientific" election forecasters that all predicted Hillary winning in a landslide obviously aren't really all that "scientific" in practice (there are exceptions of course; I have a lot of respect for Nate Silver's work). Meanwhile, the most economically impactful technology advances atm are coming mostly from barely regulated and not government funded tech firms, whose corporatist mantra is closer to Republican philosophy than Democrat (though ironically, their perceived political allies and enemies are the reverse). There's a large difference between enthusiasm for science and enabling successful science. I'd say the Democrats do well on the first part, but doing good science requires not only enthusiasm and creativity, but discipline and skepticism. It doesn't neatly fit neatly on a left-right scale, and I think it's interesting to consider that that might be a factor in why, historically, scientific success has usually occurred in places where right-left are aligned and working together (e.g. WW2, Cold War, Silicon Valley). The tech firm model is often to cluster around universities. Universities feed the tech firms talent and technology which they can then refine and bring to market. It's symbiotic with universities increasingly holding onto patents and taking equity stakes in startups. Knocking part of that relationship (academia), is neither a pro-science stance nor good economic policy. The phenomenon you're describing is completely independent of the quality of research and education actually happening at universities. The tech firms will follow talent. Whether the universities are actually developing talent or merely attracting it is irrelevant from a tech firm's perspective.
That seems implausible. You aren't going to have much talent without a good education system to develop it.
Universities are obviously good at both developing and attracting talent.
Better research, better faculty, better students... they're all intertwined.
And no, you aren't going to develop good universities and industries preaching Intelligent Design and de-funding research.
|
Irony is that Perry is not really that bad as a Secretary of Energy despite all the pre-nomination stumbles.
|
|
|
On November 20 2017 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 12:07 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2017 09:24 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 07:35 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On November 20 2017 07:09 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:34 Adreme wrote:On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based I get that you like to make statements that are nothing more then empty talking points with no basis in reality but you do realize that this administration is the one hiring non-scientists for jobs that used to only go to scientists and trying to purge scientists from various panels. That isnt some debatable point by the way its a thing they are actively doing because there solution when science disagrees with there position is to silence the scientists. I respond to partisan talking points with partisan talking points sometimes. Particularly when the author pretends to be objective. One can very objectively point out that one party (to which they may have a partisan bias independent of the commentary itself) has notably worse policies regarding say, scientific publication, education and application, than the other. That isn't a partisan talking point, that's having a basic grasp of reality. I'm in general agreement that the Democratic party is probably on average more "pro-science", but it's certainly more complicated than an "objective fact." The Democrats are definitely more willing to fund science and like to market themselves as "pro-science", sure. In practice though, the "scientific" left-wing institutions are in a definite rough patch. Academia is in the midst of a replication crisis largely funded by taxpayer dollars (yeah, what a great use of funds...), and these "scientific" election forecasters that all predicted Hillary winning in a landslide obviously aren't really all that "scientific" in practice (there are exceptions of course; I have a lot of respect for Nate Silver's work). Meanwhile, the most economically impactful technology advances atm are coming mostly from barely regulated and not government funded tech firms, whose corporatist mantra is closer to Republican philosophy than Democrat (though ironically, their perceived political allies and enemies are the reverse). There's a large difference between enthusiasm for science and enabling successful science. I'd say the Democrats do well on the first part, but doing good science requires not only enthusiasm and creativity, but discipline and skepticism. It doesn't neatly fit neatly on a left-right scale, and I think it's interesting to consider that that might be a factor in why, historically, scientific success has usually occurred in places where right-left are aligned and working together (e.g. WW2, Cold War, Silicon Valley). The tech firm model is often to cluster around universities. Universities feed the tech firms talent and technology which they can then refine and bring to market. It's symbiotic with universities increasingly holding onto patents and taking equity stakes in startups. Knocking part of that relationship (academia), is neither a pro-science stance nor good economic policy. The phenomenon you're describing is completely independent of the quality of research and education actually happening at universities. The tech firms will follow talent. Whether the universities are actually developing talent or merely attracting it is irrelevant from a tech firm's perspective. That seems implausible. You aren't going to have much talent without a good education system to develop it. Universities are obviously good at both developing and attracting talent. Better research, better faculty, better students... they're all intertwined. And no, you aren't going to develop good universities and industries preaching Intelligent Design and de-funding research.
This isn't "obvious" at all, and your entire argument is basically an assumption. Is there any evidence that Harvard does any better job educating its students than Generic U after controlling for the academic headstart its students arrive with, networking, and the university culture that essentially necessarily arises from having thousands of highly intelligent and relatively ambitious people in the same place?
Nowhere did I advocate for teaching for intelligent design.
|
On November 20 2017 13:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 12:59 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 12:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 20 2017 12:37 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 12:17 Artisreal wrote:
Dude, you can take the overwhelming majority of scientists at face value and accept climate change to be real.
Just read a IPCC report. And please don't come about with the stupidly misused weather is not climate.
regarding your questioning whether universities creat useful stuff or not:
The anwer to that is to be taken into context of what the respondee considers useful, thus it's higly subjective and a rather tame argument to make. You're also incredibly vague of what you mean so it's hard do understand what exactly your point is. To me it seems like everything non marketable isn't useful by your standards, but that might be just me. When literally more than half of studies in fields like medicine and psychology can't be replicated, it's not at all a stretch to conclude that some money has been wasted in academia. Esp when most professors are spending minimal attention on teaching and justifying it by emphasizing their focus on research that more often than not can't be replicated. An extremely uneducated claim. Replication failure is correlated with how much human factor you involve. In other words, the more you're getting away from the "hard science" and are studying things like human interaction, behavior, or the effects of things on humans, the more you'll see replication error. However, there is significantly less error when it comes to a lot of the initial trials in medicine, and when you get away from fields like social and developmental psychology and focus more on clinical psychology and cognitive psychology. Claims about "over half of all studies" just make you lose all credibility when the number is significantly lower. SourceWho's losing credibility? This is literally my field, and I'm by no means the only person talking about this problem. I never said you were the only person; it's a very prevalent conversation in the scientific community. I'm in that community and work with this topic all the time. However, blanket claims about entire fields used to invalidate them just screams of gross hyperbole that makes you seem unreasonable to converse with.
What gross hyperbole? I'm the only one here with a source, and one that has been reviewed and confirmed by others. What I stated is the actual estimates. The numbers themselves are large; it's not hyperbole, it's the actual situation. Hence why the word "crisis" is being applied.
You do realize the irony here when you, apparently an academic or scientist and thus someone with self-interest in this conversation, ignores the only provided source in this discussion, claims the number is far lower than said source claims, and then refuses to provide (original or otherwise) counterarguments?
|
On November 20 2017 13:44 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 13:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2017 12:07 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 11:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2017 09:24 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 07:35 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On November 20 2017 07:09 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:34 Adreme wrote:On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis.
Climate Change? Clean coal?
When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes.
As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called?
The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based I get that you like to make statements that are nothing more then empty talking points with no basis in reality but you do realize that this administration is the one hiring non-scientists for jobs that used to only go to scientists and trying to purge scientists from various panels. That isnt some debatable point by the way its a thing they are actively doing because there solution when science disagrees with there position is to silence the scientists. I respond to partisan talking points with partisan talking points sometimes. Particularly when the author pretends to be objective. One can very objectively point out that one party (to which they may have a partisan bias independent of the commentary itself) has notably worse policies regarding say, scientific publication, education and application, than the other. That isn't a partisan talking point, that's having a basic grasp of reality. I'm in general agreement that the Democratic party is probably on average more "pro-science", but it's certainly more complicated than an "objective fact." The Democrats are definitely more willing to fund science and like to market themselves as "pro-science", sure. In practice though, the "scientific" left-wing institutions are in a definite rough patch. Academia is in the midst of a replication crisis largely funded by taxpayer dollars (yeah, what a great use of funds...), and these "scientific" election forecasters that all predicted Hillary winning in a landslide obviously aren't really all that "scientific" in practice (there are exceptions of course; I have a lot of respect for Nate Silver's work). Meanwhile, the most economically impactful technology advances atm are coming mostly from barely regulated and not government funded tech firms, whose corporatist mantra is closer to Republican philosophy than Democrat (though ironically, their perceived political allies and enemies are the reverse). There's a large difference between enthusiasm for science and enabling successful science. I'd say the Democrats do well on the first part, but doing good science requires not only enthusiasm and creativity, but discipline and skepticism. It doesn't neatly fit neatly on a left-right scale, and I think it's interesting to consider that that might be a factor in why, historically, scientific success has usually occurred in places where right-left are aligned and working together (e.g. WW2, Cold War, Silicon Valley). The tech firm model is often to cluster around universities. Universities feed the tech firms talent and technology which they can then refine and bring to market. It's symbiotic with universities increasingly holding onto patents and taking equity stakes in startups. Knocking part of that relationship (academia), is neither a pro-science stance nor good economic policy. The phenomenon you're describing is completely independent of the quality of research and education actually happening at universities. The tech firms will follow talent. Whether the universities are actually developing talent or merely attracting it is irrelevant from a tech firm's perspective. That seems implausible. You aren't going to have much talent without a good education system to develop it. Universities are obviously good at both developing and attracting talent. Better research, better faculty, better students... they're all intertwined. And no, you aren't going to develop good universities and industries preaching Intelligent Design and de-funding research. This isn't "obvious" at all, and your entire argument is basically an assumption. Is there any evidence that Harvard does any better job educating its students better than Generic U after accounting for the academic headstart it's students arrive with, network effects, and the university culture that essentially necessarily arises from having thousands of highly intelligent and relatively ambitious people in the same place? Nowhere did I advocate for teaching for intelligent design.
I'm not arguing that Harvard is better at educating.. The obvious point was that universities educate students and attract academics. I also made a point that university research is valuable, hence businesses increasing willingness to pay for it.
In contrast, biotechnology firms are not going to cluster around ID 'universities'.
|
This is absolutely disgraceful, and shows how much influence religious indoctrination has in this country compared to science education. I guess the dark green trend is slowly moving in the ideal direction, but it's still concerning that the light green line and gray line haven't really been consistently decreasing. I would (naively?) expect that, over the next 30 years, some gray voters will leave, mostly shifting to the light green line, with the dark green line slowly but surely creeping upwards. So maybe in about 150-200 years, our dark green line will have moved from an embarrassing 1/5 of the population to 1/2? That'd be a fantastic start...
|
On November 20 2017 13:57 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 13:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 20 2017 12:59 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 12:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 20 2017 12:37 mozoku wrote:On November 20 2017 12:17 Artisreal wrote:
Dude, you can take the overwhelming majority of scientists at face value and accept climate change to be real.
Just read a IPCC report. And please don't come about with the stupidly misused weather is not climate.
regarding your questioning whether universities creat useful stuff or not:
The anwer to that is to be taken into context of what the respondee considers useful, thus it's higly subjective and a rather tame argument to make. You're also incredibly vague of what you mean so it's hard do understand what exactly your point is. To me it seems like everything non marketable isn't useful by your standards, but that might be just me. When literally more than half of studies in fields like medicine and psychology can't be replicated, it's not at all a stretch to conclude that some money has been wasted in academia. Esp when most professors are spending minimal attention on teaching and justifying it by emphasizing their focus on research that more often than not can't be replicated. An extremely uneducated claim. Replication failure is correlated with how much human factor you involve. In other words, the more you're getting away from the "hard science" and are studying things like human interaction, behavior, or the effects of things on humans, the more you'll see replication error. However, there is significantly less error when it comes to a lot of the initial trials in medicine, and when you get away from fields like social and developmental psychology and focus more on clinical psychology and cognitive psychology. Claims about "over half of all studies" just make you lose all credibility when the number is significantly lower. SourceWho's losing credibility? This is literally my field, and I'm by no means the only person talking about this problem. I never said you were the only person; it's a very prevalent conversation in the scientific community. I'm in that community and work with this topic all the time. However, blanket claims about entire fields used to invalidate them just screams of gross hyperbole that makes you seem unreasonable to converse with. What gross hyperbole? I'm the only one here with a source, and one that has been reviewed and confirmed by others. What I stated is the actual estimates. The numbers themselves are large; it's not hyperbole, it's the actual situation. Hence why the word "crisis" is being applied. You do realize the irony here when you, apparently an academic or scientist and thus someone with self-interest in this conversation, ignores the only provided source in this discussion, claims the number is far lower than said source claims, and then refuses to provide (original or otherwise) counterarguments?
You didn't provide a source. You linked a home page to a journal.
The irony cuts both ways.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that I know what article you're trying to reference, and it doesn't conclude that over half of medical studies can't be replicated (and it doesn't talk about psychological studies at all). The number is a significant one, but it's not half.
|
There's also a rather large difference between pointing at the reproducibility problem in research and doing so while thinking it plays a meaningful role in justifying the anti-science/academia attitudes of Republicans.
|
I don't think I've ever seen a link between null hypothesis testing and political disposition, and null hypothesis testing as a criterion for scientific import de facto generates "reproducibility problems" as in an estimation framework there's no such thing as reproducibility.
(as long as the main way to get a finding into the circulation is p < 0.05, you will ALWAYS have reproducibility problems and ALWAYS generate exaggerated effect estimates that are hard to reproduce if you power to the meta-analyzed estimate)
|
On November 20 2017 13:15 LegalLord wrote:
Irony is that Perry is not really that bad as a Secretary of Energy despite all the pre-nomination stumbles.
hush you'll jinx it
|
The more difficult questions of what it means for the field and null hypothesis testing aside, psychology's replication crisis is very real. Pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.
|
I think Franken could be doing a lot better with the most recent accusation that he firmly grabbed a woman’s butt.
|
He should spend more time crafting them for sure. We will have to see if more people come forward.
|
Alright guys, I'm sure this is a different person this time
According to Menz, she attended the Minnesota State Fair with her husband and father in the summer of 2010, almost two years after Franken was elected to the Senate. Her father's small business was sponsoring a local radio booth, and she spent the day meeting various elected officials, political candidates and celebrities and taking photos with them as they stopped by the booth.
When Franken walked in, Menz and her husband, who also spoke with CNN, said they recognized him right away. Menz said she had a brief and cordial exchange with the senator.
Then, as her husband held up her phone and got ready to snap a photo of the two of them, Franken "pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear," Menz said. "It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek."
"It wasn't around my waist. It wasn't around my hip or side. It was definitely on my butt," she said, recalling that the brazen act lasted three or four seconds. "I was like, oh my God, what's happening."
"He reached around her and kind of pulled her into him," said her husband Jeremy Menz, who didn't see what happened behind his wife. "He pulled her in and pushed his head against her head. It was over pretty quick."
Lindsay Menz told CNN that she walked away as soon as the photo was taken, without saying anything to the then-first term senator. When she reconnected with her husband moments later, she told him: "He totally grabbed my butt." Jeremy Menz described that conversation the same way to CNN.
Menz posted the photo with Franken on Facebook at the time, on August 27, 2010. Her sister, Cari Thunker, commented under the photo: "Sorry, but you two aren't Bibles (sic) width apart" -- a reference, Thunker explained to CNN, to how physically close Menz and Franken were in the photo.
Menz responded to her sister on Facebook: "Dude -- Al Franken TOTALLY molested me! Creeper!"
Source
On November 21 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:
He should spend more time crafting them for sure. We will have to see if more people come forward.
Why?
|
On November 21 2017 00:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Alright guys, I'm sure this is a different person this time Show nested quote +According to Menz, she attended the Minnesota State Fair with her husband and father in the summer of 2010, almost two years after Franken was elected to the Senate. Her father's small business was sponsoring a local radio booth, and she spent the day meeting various elected officials, political candidates and celebrities and taking photos with them as they stopped by the booth.
When Franken walked in, Menz and her husband, who also spoke with CNN, said they recognized him right away. Menz said she had a brief and cordial exchange with the senator.
Then, as her husband held up her phone and got ready to snap a photo of the two of them, Franken "pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear," Menz said. "It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek."
"It wasn't around my waist. It wasn't around my hip or side. It was definitely on my butt," she said, recalling that the brazen act lasted three or four seconds. "I was like, oh my God, what's happening."
"He reached around her and kind of pulled her into him," said her husband Jeremy Menz, who didn't see what happened behind his wife. "He pulled her in and pushed his head against her head. It was over pretty quick."
Lindsay Menz told CNN that she walked away as soon as the photo was taken, without saying anything to the then-first term senator. When she reconnected with her husband moments later, she told him: "He totally grabbed my butt." Jeremy Menz described that conversation the same way to CNN.
Menz posted the photo with Franken on Facebook at the time, on August 27, 2010. Her sister, Cari Thunker, commented under the photo: "Sorry, but you two aren't Bibles (sic) width apart" -- a reference, Thunker explained to CNN, to how physically close Menz and Franken were in the photo.
Menz responded to her sister on Facebook: "Dude -- Al Franken TOTALLY molested me! Creeper!" SourceShow nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:16 Plansix wrote:
He should spend more time crafting them for sure. We will have to see if more people come forward. Why?
I am sorry, I needed to be clear:
I’m still uncomfortable with him being in the senate, but will understand if he stays on. This new account is troubling, but does not change my opinion one way or the other. However, I fully understand people who want to see him resign and willing not argue with that opinion, even if I do not hold it myself.
|
Well, I was wrong when I said Franken's career was over.
Now it's over.
Then again, maybe details will reveal themselves that dictate otherwise. But, credulity is being stretched. This isn't an ass-grabbing political-op on a USO-tour. This is a constituent with her Senator. The context leaves a lot less room for excuses.
edit: If he can't swing hard at this stuff and just flat-out deny that he has ever or would ever do anything remotely like that, then... he should probably just step aside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
