All posts in the topic Democrat Women Stand with Al Franken, US Senate Candidate in Minnesota (Short link)
Summary
- There are 45 posts — by 14 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Jamie Delton at Sep 06 02:01 UTC
Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher, St. Paul City Council President Kathy Lantry, Rep. Erin Murphy, and Ramsey County Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt stand with Al Franken, US Senate candidate in Minnesota. Did anyone attend this event? http://blog.alfranken.com/2008/08/14/women-for-franken-in-st-paul/ Jamie Delton Summit U
I was there.
Shannon Drury
Field-Regina-Northrop
Minneapolis
Did he respect those women with principles and address their concerns with his
past porno work and sexist anti-gay nightclub routines or did he presume you
were all his loyal fans lending him a photo opportunity and continue to
distract with the 401-U and his "kitchen table" issue?
If he talked issues did he explain how he plans to pay for all his ambitious
ideas? The new taxes Off shore hedge fund managers presumably will pay now that
Norm Coleman and others identified them and brought their activities to a stop,
right? See DeltonDigest.com and search on "labors in obscurity".
The guy is an idiot, Shannon.
Jamie Delton
Summit U
Jamie, I think it might be more helpful to this forum if you are plain about
your intentions. For example, you could have created a post entitled "Jamie
Delton Thinks Al Franken is an Idiot, and Here's Why He Feels That Way." You
could have spouted the tired porn bit again, and then I could reply with the
fact that your Grand Old Party just endorsed a man convicted of a domestic
attack on his wife for a Minnesota Senate seat. Then we could bicker about who
hates or respects women more.
Ironically, I sense a bit of sexism in your post, as you assume that a group
Minnesota women of intelligence and accomplishment would allow themselves to be
reduced to being "all his loyal fans." Women can support a candidate without
being likened to groupies, thank you very much. We are an active part of his
campaign. I have personally advised Al Franken on federal legislation
affecting reproductive rights and women's health care. He has earned my
respect and my support.
Shannon Drury
F-R-N
Minneapolis
Jamie Delton: "Did he respect those women with principles and address their
concerns with his past porno work and sexist anti-gay nightclub routines or did
he presume you were all his loyal fans lending him a photo opportunity and
continue to distract with the 401-U and his "kitchen table" issue? ... The guy
is an idiot, Shannon."
No, he is not an idiot, far from it. What is idiotic is the Republican attempts
to characterize the Playboy piece as porn, when it was clearly satire on porn
in Playboy magazine. It was clever to get Playboy to pay Franken big money to
make fun of Playboy in print in its own magazine.
It is also very suspect to characterize nightclub routines as sexist and
anti-gay on questionable reports. Notice that those same insensed people did
not picket the nightclub or in any way mention the alleged content of the
nightclub routine at the time it was done. It is only now that Franken tosses
his hat in the ring for senator that it y becomes an issue of hindsight. Cite
some contemporaneous objections to Franken's nightclub act from those who saw
it. If you have not witnessed Franken's nightclub act yourself, presuming you
understood what was going on (since Republicans seldom understand satire), then
to repeat a rumor does not advance any dialog, but it does serve to dismiss
what you have to say about Franken.
I don't particularly care for Mr. Franken as a senate wannabe, I would rather
have had one of his two pre-convention opponents be the endorsee, but I do
glean from all that has been said about Franken that he has greater promise as
a candidate than Norm Coleman has displayed as a seated senator. And, of
course, we've seen Coleman as he fervently sucked up to the Bush administration
and faithfully carried out their wishes to strip the US Treasury and beggar the
nation.
What I most object to is Coleman's inability to understand that the Congress is
co-equal to both the Judiciary and the Administrative branches of government.
He--and too many others--plays his position as lap dog for the administration.
Now THAT is pornographic, sexist, and anti-gay, not to mention anti-American,
in the truest sense of the word.
Look, I don't care if Franken wrote a bit of "satire" for Playboy; he was (in
effect) a freelance writer, and Playboy pays *great*. Having been a
freelancer, I can't blame him for selling an article.
I also don't care (much) about his standup comedy and comedy writing careers;
it's what he did to earn a living, for crying out loud. As a conservative
pundit who once earned a living as a rap DJ, I'm the last person to hold that
against someone.
So let's do what Franken's supporters demand; ignore all that. What's left, in
terms of things to help one judge for whom one votes?
Not a lot. Leave out the party labels for a moment (I know, that's all that
matters to most of you), and what is there for the undecided voter to see, to
help them decide?
A failed talk radio career?
A bunch of smug, unctuous political books whose "comedy" wasn't very funny and
whose "ideas" were pretty stupid?
There's really not a lot more "there" there. That is his *entire* public
record. That, and a bunch of campaign promises.
I only hope my failing computer serves me long enough to get off a reply to
Mitch's erroneous characterizations of Al Franken's accomplishments.
Mitch called Al's outstanding Air America program a "failed talk radio
career."
I listened faithfully, and the informative guests and the level of engagement
and comprehension Al demonstrated day after day were the best thing Air
America
had to offer. So how does stepping away from a successful show he launched
constitute a "failure"?
Mitch continues, calling Al's political books "a bunch of smug, unctuous
political books whose "comedy" wasn't very
> funny and whose "ideas" were pretty stupid?" This I can only surmise
> are comments from someone who either 1) didn't read the books, or 2)
> read them and found the humor too uncomfortable to be enjoyed and the
> exposure of the falsehoods and misconceptions upon which this person
> based their philosophy so pointed and true that their only recourse
> is to label them "stupid" rather than to even attempt to counter them.
Both of these tactics fall into the "Oh yeah, and your mother wears
army boots"
category of response, in my view.
If someone wants to combat the points Al's books made with arguments,
go to it.
And if someone wants to point out how Al's vastly informative Air America
"failed," I'm all ears.
Meanwhile, I'm a Democrat woman who has decided to maintain a voting
presence in
Minnesota in part for the opportunity to vote for a candidate who
believes as I
do that, while Coleman's commercials are laughable, his voting record and
support of unwise Republican policies is not.
>
On 8/19/08, <email obscured> <cviken@centurytel.net> wrote: > Mitch called Al's outstanding Air America program a "failed talk radio > career." > I listened faithfully, and the informative guests and the level of engagement > and comprehension Al demonstrated day after day were the best thing Air > America > had to offer. So how does stepping away from a successful show he launched > constitute a "failure"? I guess it depends on what one thinks is successful. I did a search on Air America ratings and found ratings available for Air America in NYC and they weren't good. The numbers were from 04 and 05. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200504261400.asp here's more about their numbers: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-04-29ba.html and there's this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49948 John Harris mpls
Oh, what the heck. I'll burn my second post on this.
Christine leapt to the defense of Mr. Smalley's Air America show. My first
career was radio and so, my conservative talk show notwithstanding, I'm
*exceedingly* clinical about my appraisal of talk radio programming. Politics
is pretty much politics - but the craft and business of doing good radio is
utterly nonpartisan.
So when Christine says...:
> Mitch called Al's outstanding Air America program a
> "failed talk radio career."
> I listened faithfully, and the informative guests and the
> level of engagement and comprehension Al demonstrated day
> after day were the best thing Air America had to offer.
"The Best Air America had to offer" is best filed under "damning with faint
praise".
Franken sounded terrible on the air; he was an awful interviewer unless he was
interacting with utterly friendly subjects (his interview with John Hinderaker
is a local legend, sort of the "Plan Nine From Outer Space" of radio
interviews). His inexperience with how to do decent radio showed (which was
why they hired Katherine Lanpher to be his sidekick and do all the radio stuff
- itself a laughable admission). The fact that he needed a staff of writers to
do his show showed how really unsuited to the business he was.
But that's all style. People can turn crummy style into a bankable career.
But Franken? Well...:
> So how does stepping away from a successful
> show he launched
> constitute a "failure"?
There was *nothing*, from an objective, dollars and cents and ratings points
perspective, "successful" about Al Franken or any aspect of Air America. His
ratings were putrid everywhere he aired (with the exception of Portland Oregon,
and he only succeeded there for about a year), distinguished only by doing
better than the rest of Air America's feeble lineup. The show was a money pit;
Franken drew at least a million a year in salary (some sources say two
million), and the show's overhead in terms of overpaid producers, undertalented
sidekicks and over-staffed writers made the show a money pit; it would have had
to have had Limbaugh or Hannity-sized numbers to have broken even, much less
succeeded. Suffice to say, he didn't get those numbers.
I appreciate the fact that you were a fan, Ms. Viken, and at the end of the day
that's all that needs to count for you - but "The Al Franken Show" was a
complete disaster as radio and as business.
Let's see John. Air America is, what, eight years old, maybe nine with few stations. So they didn't have decent ratings their first few years. What was Rush's ratings when he started and how long did it take until he had decent ratings? How many stations did Air America have? I would bet fewer than those Al was on. You know you can get great ratings when you are owned by deep pocket corporations that can cross advertise their stations and fill the sky with billboards with the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
On 8/19/08, Mike Fratto <mfratto@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Let's see John. Air America is, what, eight years old, maybe nine with few
stations. So they didn't have decent ratings their first few years. What was
Rush's ratings when he started and how long did it take until he had decent
ratings?
I don't know what rush's ratings are nor do I care.
air america also filed for bankruptancy in 06 i believe.
like i said, it depends on what you consider successful. in the radio
business, like it or not, it is ratings that is used to measure one
station against another.
howard stern was widely successful on the radio but failed miserably
in the cities mostly because of the massive audience KQ has in the
morning. those who did listen enjoyed the show but should that make
it a success even though it was eventually cancelled due to poor
ratings?
Just trying to put inject some objectivity to the discussion.
John Harris
mpls
I just found a current Rush Limbaugh clip on either YouTube or AlterNet wherein
he said he is starting a "chaos" campaign. He wants to have riots at,
presumably, the DNc, though it could have been the RNC. Rush wants riots "like
Chicago in 1968."
Idiotic. Moronic. Stupid.
Also from the clip, he's way chunky.
So maybe Franken's book title, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," is spot on.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:39:44 +0000, Wizard Marks wrote:
>I just found a current Rush Limbaugh clip on either YouTube or AlterNet
wherein he said he is starting a "chaos" campaign. He wants to have riots at,
presumably, the DNc, though it could have been the RNC. Rush wants riots "like
Chicago in 1968."
Wizard is probably referring to that particular drug addict's rant at
As somebody who could fairly be referred to as "fat" himself, I'd say,
yeah, he looks fat. And sounds like an idiot.
It's Denver that he wants riots at. Not St. Paul, where Republican
hacks will gather to anoint that wrinkly white-haired guy.
Franken? He wasn't my first choice, but he'll do. At least he's not an
idiot. And hasn't been getting sweetheart deals on his rent from
Republican lobbyists.
"Ironically, I sense a bit of sexism in your post, as you assume that a group
Minnesota women of intelligence and accomplishment would allow themselves to be
reduced to being "all his loyal fans." "
Oh I don't know Shannon, looking at the lead photo with all 5 Democrat
politicians clapping and tilting their heads for Franken - looks like a fan
club to me. I'll be glad to be proven wrong by an account of his speech. That
an account of his speech was sought is why I posted this topic. In the meantime
some womens' group may want to archive that photo from the Franken site for
posterity. It is an example of what women ought not to be "reduced" to!
To Mitch's point about the honor associated with a piece in Playboy.
I grew up in a family of writers. My late mother wrote more than 200 children's
books including Dell Yearling series, and numerous articles after teaching at
St. Lukes for many years.
2 of my siblings were published and the other one is tenured.
The Playboy article impresses me not one bit. Franken was awarded the piece
because of his celebrity. He could have refused the lucrative opportunity which
many celebrities and other folks have done.
He could have taken the opportunity to amplify a pet cause. But he chose - a
satire on a porn reader which probably noone understood as satire.
I do not respect the celebrity on which the Playboy opportunity was based, the
work itself or Franken's lack of explanation.
Hugh Hefner buys credibility. But you can still refuse the money. Or you can
accept the money, turn it around and write about your own topic as Buckley did
in the same issue as Franken's article.
Al Franken chose not to do either.
Typically Franken can't answer simple questions and is avoiding Lord Faris.
Pricilla would tear him apart, rhetorically, and he knows it.
Priscilla Lord Faris is an authentic Minnesotan. Her views were not represented
at the meeting/photo opp. Please comment on her.
Again, if there's anyone who attended can we get an account of the speech?
Thank you!
Jamie Delton
Summit U
J. Delton: "I grew up in a family of writers. My late mother wrote more than
200 children's books including Dell Yearling series, and numerous articles
after teaching at St. Lukes for many years. 2 of my siblings were published and
the other one is tenured."The Playboy article impresses me not one bit. He
could have refused the lucrative opportunity which many celebrities and other
folks have done. He could have taken the opportunity to amplify a pet cause.
But he chose - a satire on a porn reader which probably noone understood as
satire.
" ... all 5 Democrat politicians clapping and tilting their heads for Franken -
looks like a fan club to me. I'll be glad to be proven wrong by an account of
his speech. That an account of his speech was sought is why I posted this
topic."
That's not how it works, Mr. Delton, and, if you grew up in a family of
writers, you above all should know that. You cannot critique modern Jewish
satire by virtue of your DNA or your proximity to other writers.
Further, Franken, if he becomes a MN senator, will seldom be called on to write
satire into federal law, though he may enter satire into the Congressional
Record from that position.
Having grown up in a family of writers, surely you know also that you cannot
choose either the venue, subject matter, or treatment of any writer not
yourself. Yes, Franken probably could have wangled a spot in the Christian
Science Monitor, so what? Playboy magazine pays better and is a better venue
for satire, even if 90% of the readers do not understand the satire. Why should
Franken turn down work? He is self-employed. A freelance writer.
Are you asking that Franken eschew any venue whose "philosophy" is in
opposition to that convoluted, thin-brained, shoddy mish-mash that Hugh Hefner
calls his own? Did your mother ascertain the philosophy of her publisher before
she wrote? Did she turn down offers from those whose philosophy she disagreed
with?
With your second post in this thread, you reemphasize your accusation that
Democratic women politicians are mere bubble heads. You took up two posts to do
so. So don't march out some twaddle about wanting to know the content of
Franken's speech. If you wanted that, you would have googled that.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but "clapping and tilting their heads" is a
signal in this Minnesota culture that you are paying attention. It's just good
manners, donchaknow.
Your posts on this thread demands that Franken and those who would vote for
him, hold him to a standard that even your own mother could not honestly
support. Do tell.
My only comment on Coleman and Franken is that Franken probably thought
he was a good comedian until he saw what happened in the Senate under
the Republicans.
Coleman and the Republicans want to talk about everything except what
they did.
A good local example was a town meeting with Rep. Kate Knuth. Some
young puppy Republican blogger attacked her on the $450,000 spent on
steps down to the river as part of the 35W bridge reconstruction. Last
time I looked, the contract was issued by MNDOT when Lt Gov Molnau was
DOT Commissioner and B__ B_____ Pawlenty was still Governor.
The only role the Legislature had was to appropriate money. I guess
they could have micromanaged the process by insisting on review the
contract but that seems unreasonable.
On the bridge, as a small business owner, I am still amazed at the
incentive payments in the contract. MNDOT took the high bidder with
longest delivery date. They then will give them another $27 million to
match the low bidders delivery date.
Republicans continually surprise me with their total lack of business
acumen.
"You cannot critique modern Jewish satire by virtue of your DNA or your
proximity to other writers."
Huh?
Wizard, Franken has NOT explained his porn.
"Why should Franken turn down work? "
He shouldn't. He should take the work he wants. He should also take
responsibility for the completed work and it's part in our culture.
"Your posts on this thread demands that Franken and those who would vote for
him, hold him to a standard that even your own mother could not honestly
support. Do tell"
Actually the standard is met by every Minnesotan but Franken and Ferris
Alexander.
Let Franken answer Priscilla Lord Faris' demands for explanations. Let them
debate.
Again, I am looking for an account of the speech or a link to the transcript.
Not sure what ulterior motive you suspect.
If you have it please share!
Thanks!
Regards,
Jamie Delton
Summit U
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:03:06 +1200 (NZST), Jamie Delton wrote:
>Wizard, Franken has NOT explained his porn.
Porn? Only a very up-tight person would term Franken's piece for
Playboy (for a Y2K issue on the theme of "sex in the next 1000 years")
as porn.
Have you actually read it? I'm very interested in your answer.
Mr. Delton, you began your screed by saying you grew up in a family of writers
and went on to say that you "were not impressed" by Franken's satire. By so
doing, you asserted that you have a basis, through your family, for claiming
the ability to critique Franken's piece in Playboy. That is not a basis which
can lend you credentials.
Franken did not write any porn in Playboy. So if Lord Faris is demanding an
explanation of his alleged porn from Franken she is talking through her hat.
And, of course, trying to compare Franken to Ferris Alexander is an example of
Swift Boating. Ferris Alexander never wrote a thing. He was a purveyor of
pornography who was convicted under the RICO Act of racketeering influence in
the SELLING of porn. Did time in federal prison.
No, 'every Minnesotan' does not hold to a standard that vilifies satire by
misnaming it porn. Minnesotans have even been known to write satire. The Coen
(sp?) brothers (Fargo) write satire, as one current example.
There is no conceivable connection between Franken and Alexander. Alexander,
having corked off before Franken wrote the satire in Playboy, cannot be said to
have even sold that issue in one of his stores, let alone have his mythical
writing compared to it.
All three of your posts on this thread are an orgy of ad hominem fallacies:
i.e. you have credibility as a critic because people in your family write.
Franken's satire is porn, there's a connection between Franken and Ferris
Alexander. A veritable swamp of illogic.
Ms. Lord-Faris, an August entry into the senate race (that's a clue), entered
the race to be a spoiler. In effect, she's working on Norm Coleman's team. She
has no credibility as a critic of Jewish satire either. Worse yet, she's Swift
Boating a member of her own party with her uninformed challenge (another clue).
So far, her behavior does not recommend her as a candidate for any public
office, but Coleman is tee-heeing behind his hand, seeing another term in
office.
Further, she is claiming preparedness for the position because her father was a
judge for many years. Also illogical, we are not going to have another
opportunity to vote for her father. What does she bring to the table as
credentials for the job?
Jewish satire is a wonderful thing when it's working. Mr. Franken's satire
often suffers from a lack of writer maturity. He too often uses shtick as a
substitute for insight. When he reverts to the same shtick he used in his
twenties and thirties, he is disappointing. But he is clearly in the tradition
of Jewish satire of the television age. And that satirical humor has shaped
what American's who lived through that era think is funny. (Though it probably
does not hold true for satire impaired.)
If you are going to critique the piece Franken wrote in Playboy at the early
dawn of the Bush Administration., then, by all means, do so. What you have
written is slurs from the peanut gallery displaying the fact that you don't
what satire is and have misnamed it porn because it appeared in Hefner's slick
and sleazy mag which is read by millions on a month to month basis. It's a huge
audience. It's considered quite a coup to be printed in Playboy if one is a
writer.
I will repeat, Franken is not running on satire he wrote at least eight years
ago. You have only stated an uninformed opinion of Franken's satire as a way of
taking sexist pot shots at Democratic women politicians. Yet more illogic. Take
responsibility for what you write before you criticize anyone else for
allegedly refusing to do so.
WMarks, Mpls.
> Mr. Delton, you began your screed by saying you grew up in a
> family of writers and went on to say that you "were not
> impressed" by Franken's satire. By so doing, you
> asserted that you have a basis, through your family, for
> claiming the ability to critique Franken's piece in
> Playboy. That is not a basis which can lend you credentials.
Perhaps.
But the First Amendment is.
There are no "credentials" for being a critic (although given the Democrats'
mania for reinstating the "Fairness" doctrine and extending it to blogs, that
could certainly change. Why do you people hate free speech so much?)
> And, of course, trying to compare Franken to Ferris
> Alexander is an example of Swift Boating.
Point of order: if it were "Swift Boating", it'd be the truth.
> No, 'every Minnesotan' does not hold to a standard
> that vilifies satire by misnaming it porn. Minnesotans have
> even been known to write satire. The Coen (sp?) brothers
> (Fargo) write satire, as one current example.
Yeah, but if Norm Coleman had written that exact same bit of "satire" in
Playboy magazine, the DFL Feminist Caucus would be calling it "virtual rape".
> All three of your posts on this thread are an orgy of ad
> hominem fallacies: i.e. you have credibility as a critic
> because people in your family write.
That's not an ad-hominem; it attacks nobody. And the only "illogic" was that
credibility stems from geneology.
>I will repeat, Franken is not running on satire he wrote at
> least eight years ago.
And I will repeat: since Franken has never served in office, his writing,
comedy and failed talk radio careers are all the voter has by which to judge
him.
There is nothing else!
> You have only stated an uninformed
> opinion of Franken's satire
"Uninformed" only by your picayune and biased standards!
> as a way of taking sexist
> pot shots at Democratic women politicians.
If a republican orders a pizza in the woods and Wiz isn't there to hear it, it
he still being a sexist?
You have to admit that the photo was pretty comical, and if it had been Michele
Bachmann and Mary Kiffmeyer involved you (plural) would be jabbering like a
bunch of poo-flinging monkeys about how it looked like a synchronized swim
team.
Admit it!
Mitch Berg
The only genuine feminist on this forum
The Midway
Swift Boating, the kind of duty performed in Vietnam, was the truth,
Mitch Berg, a truth that many in this branch of the military endured
for their tours there. As much as Mitch and Jamie Delton would like
to believe--perhaps do believe--that the disgusting smears and sick
denigrations, as in the 2004 Swift Boat ads, utilized by Republicans
over the years is the truth, it is not the truth.
The lies and the self-serving distortions of fact and circumstance in
Republican campaigns are certainly protected speech, but in this day
and age, the more you utter or write them, the more you will be
consigned to oblivion by the voters. Radio ratings are certainly a
measure of who has the time and inclination to get their information
through this sort of distorted filter; Al Franken could have gone on
broadcasting to a smaller and devoted band of devotees, but he chose
to take the lead on the campaign trail instead of the supporting role
in which I ran into him for years here in Minnesota. Just because
Mitch chooses to ignore Al's presence and work in Minnesota, does not
mean he can snow anyone else about just who Al Franken is; Minnesota
is getting to know Al everyday, now until November and beyond, and
we're not going to listen to some guy who uses the Republican
equivalent of George Orwell's 1984 Newspeak on us. Here's a bit more
from 1984, the stuff Mitch is trying to paint his opposition with:
"The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly
different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous
pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace
after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it
was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant
lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
ClearChannel, FoxNews, the whole corporate communications edifice
sort of reminds me of Minitrue. Which American political party does
this sound like to you? I guess it all depends on what you think is
true.
Minnesotans are particularly disgusted with the Republican notions of
truth and democratic government, from the top to the bottom. A global
change is coming and we're not living the novel by George Orwell; the
bad guys are going down this time, even if they don't know who they
are, because we know them. That's the truth.
On 8/21/08, Bill Kahn <wjkahn@mac.com> wrote:
> Just because Mitch chooses to ignore Al's presence and work in Minnesota,
I don't choose to ignore it. I don't know what Al's "work" in
Minnesota is? His ad's say he will continue to work for middle class
families or something like that. What has Al done that he will
continue to do? I'm genuinely curious.
> Minnesotans are particularly disgusted with the Republican notions of
> truth and democratic government, from the top to the bottom.
I'm a Minnesotan and i'm not nearly as disgusted as you think I should
be. I know you like to think that we all are blindly liberal, but we
aren't.
John Harris
mpls
This really isn't Minnesota-related, but since Bill Kahn's doing it, it'll be
OK. For Bill Kahn, anyway.
Same old MN-Pol. How the heck do we fix this so we can submit comment
without it veering off to this level?
Laura
Southeast/Como
>
> If a republican orders a pizza in the woods and Wiz isn't there to
> hear it, it he still being a sexist?
>
> You have to admit that the photo was pretty comical, and if it had
> been Michele Bachmann and Mary Kiffmeyer involved you (plural)
> would be jabbering like a bunch of poo-flinging monkeys about how
> it looked like a synchronized swim team.
>
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
Wizard,
I don't know if you want to defend Franken or some feminists' decision to
endorse Franken, but you're doing a lousy job at both.
Betty McCollum, THE leading Minnesota Democrat woman, and my US Rep, has said
Franken's work is INDEFENSIBLE. This is probably our only common ground.
To help you with your self contraction, which must be inducing a headache (I
know I'm getting one), contemplate if you agree with the following standard
feminist belief:
A porno livelihood exploits women.
Okay, now consider:
Both Al Franken and Ferris Alexander chose their livelihood (as adults).
a) Their past work choice does not reflect our Minnesota values.
b) Both men's livelihoods exploit women.
c) Both men's livelihoods exploit sex.
d) Each validates the other's selfish anti-social exploitation and
furthers social breakdown.
Note all this comes from me, a private citizen in August 2008, after several
years of no candor or reflection about his work by Al Franken. Anything
forthcoming from Franken on this topic will be contrived campaign posturing. He
has not concluded on his own this work is wrong.
Jamie Delton
Summit U
I am sorry Mr. Delton. I am aware the Al Franken has had an article published in Playboy. I am not aware of any other activity that could be called porn. Would you please let the rest of us know from whence your comparisons of Alexander and Franken come from? We have already been told the article was no where near pornographic. So is the issue that he was published? That is a pretty big stretch. What is interesting is that you are the one arguing the issue with women. As far as what Betty McCullom said, I am pretty sure you don't know the reason behind it. I know my first impression is that she was trying to get her friend Mike Ciresi endorsed. It didn't happen. Sp where is all this porn that you accuse Franken of? Mike Fratto Payne Phalen Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
I also find it interesting I'm the only one arguing this point, Mike.
As I said before you can take Betty's remarks as a reflection of her principles
or you can take them as pro-Ciresi. It reflects on you not her. But since she
has since reneged, and I support her opponent, Edward Matthews, I won't argue
the point.
Other exploitative work Franken was paid for, besides the article, which I call
porn, and have read, would be the off color night club acts.
Jamie Delton
Summit U
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:54:02 +1200 (NZST), you wrote: >Betty McCollum, THE leading Minnesota Democrat woman, and my US Rep, has said Franken's work is INDEFENSIBLE. But you yourself haven't actually read it, eh? Nah, Betty McCollum, sadly, was pandering to the crowd in her desire to push another candidate. Or perhaps, hasn't read it either, and is getting her knowledge secondhand from that Hindquarters website, like you are. For the humor-impaired, I'll point out that it's satire. Now, Al ain't Jonathan Swift or anything, so it's not in the league of proposing to eat the babies of Irish people. It's about the level one would expect to see in Playboy, competent, mildly amusing. I had to go to the library to find it (yes! the public library has it! sin! sin! sin! but I expect you want to abolish public libraries too.). I see it's still downloadable from http://www.driveway.com/g1s2g9t5p8, if you'd like to actually know what you're talking about. >A porno livelihood exploits women. So do most employers (though I'll grant, most employers exploit *everybody*). But the article isn't porn, so that's irrelevant. You rightwingers are just shocked, shocked I tell you, that anyone would write for Playboy, even though in my observation the young males among you sought Playboy out avidly. Mr. Delton, have you ever read a Playboy? Did you subsequently read another issue?
Mr. Delton, I suspect that you don't read all that well since you insist on
mislabeling satire as porn solely because it appeared in Playboy magazine. I'm
defending Franken's right to write satire: his piece in Playboy stands or falls
qua satire.
Clearly, you want Mr. Franken to admit to having done something wrong. I have
heard Franken say that he writes satire. You want him to debate his work as
though it were porn. Incorrectly repeating your porn mantra is not an argument
for or against what Franken wrote.
Trying to pin the Playboy piece to Minnesota values is also bunk. And using
porn to laboriously try to make a connection between Ferris Alexander and
Franken is ludicrous. Minnesotans, lots of 'em, value writing and value satire,
though far fewer value the typical writing in Playboy. Far, far fewer
Minnesotans value what Ferris Alexander sold in his shops.
Ferris Alexander never wrote anything other than a check. He valued money,
recognized the huge fortune to be made from pornography, and rode that gravy
train, a market which pays very well and never experiences slumps, until he was
convicted of racketeering influence and went to federal prison.
Al Franken, on the other hand, chose to write satire, a field that sometimes
pays well, but usually pays very poorly. Fully 90% of satire writers, and
fiction writers in general, both good and bad, qualify for food stamps. Mr.
Franken has managed to make a handsome living as a writer of satire.
Franken is running a campaign for the senate. In that arena, a writer doesn't
discuss his ouvre for several reasons: it's not germaine to the subject of how
he would fashion a post as a senator, most people don't give a fig about that
kind of discussion, and it makes a yawner of a stump speech. That kind of stuff
is for PMLA, a niche market journal in which every jotting by a writer gets
critiqued to death.
DFL women politicians who support Franken can surely give reasons for so doing.
It is very, very unlikely that any of them base their support on their
critiques of Franken's writing. They do not deserve to be misdescribed as
groupies from someone apparently trying to prove he's a true Republican by
virtue of his inability to label writing correctly and his ability to take
snide, juvenile pot shots at women politicians of other parties.
As a Republican, Jamie is ill suited to rank our DFL women. First, he
doesn't even know we are DFLers not Democrats; second he uses poor
grammar (Democrat) not Democratic woman, showing he is either poorly
educated or purposefully trying to follow the old Gingrich play book of
using words that grate on the ear for his opponents; Finally, Senator
Amy Klobuchar is our leading elected Democratic woman.
Hang it up Jamie, you are beating a dead horse. You seem to get off on
baiting Ms. Marks who seems unable to resist your ploys but they are
tiresome. The complaints about Franken's writings seems not to have a
great deal of traction, from a tactical point of view, Republicans
should have held off and raised it in October.
As for comparisons, Norm is paying for being a party changing
opportunist and a Bush clone in the Senate. Twist and dodge as he may,
his six year record of supporting Bush on the economy, the war and
social policies are what will cause his loss in the fall. His dismal
record heading the Subcommittee on Investigations demonstrated that he
puts personal ambition and political opportunism above serving the
people. The Subcommittee which had a proud record of investigating
labor racketeering, organized crime, Billie Sol Estes' scandal, DoD
mismanagement of the TFX and missile procurements, and the sad episode
of McCarthy's red witch hunt which was ended by a investigation by a
subcommittee of the subcommittee, was sadly mismanaged by Norm. Instead
of investigating and following the evidence, Norm poorly constructed a
"show trial" to "prove" the UN was mismanaged and had allowed
profiteering on the Iraq Oil for Food program, He managed to avoid
mentioning the US firms that participated although the Dept of Justice
did get convictions. He also was made of fool of by British Member of
Parliament George Galloway who rebutted his charges and rebuked Coleman
as he testified.
As the NPR poll yesterday shows, interesting things may be happening.
The tie between Franken and Coleman is interesting on several levels.
The tie itself is a shift in the numbers. The party distribution with
about half DFL and a third Republican is either a sampling error or a
shift in party identification similar to those being seen in states with
party registration.
Future polling will let us know what reality may be.
Marc Asch,
In a previous incarnation, I might have been a bar room brawler. Traces still
remain. Could be genetic, I suppse.
Franken's piece was porn. If it is anything in addition to porn, it is parody. It is not satire. Voltaire is satire. Franken now claims his article satirically attacked men who write in to Playboy. This is an attempt to obscure the purpose of the article. The article's purpose was to titulate Playboy readers, as you can see from Dave Garland's link. No where before his campaign started 2 or 3 years ago does he ever explain his porn as being satire. Only in the campaign did he explain the porn as satire and only then not until the MNGOP challenged him. At any rate a work can be both satire and porn. Franken has already taken steps to backtrack on his contention he was proud of all his work. He did so in response to MDE's post about Franken using the N-word, not on his own. He made an ad to say he is not proud of everything he's ever written. Now that Franken has finally learned from us what an ethical concern with his work might be, he may offer some explanation of the article in October. What amount was Franken paid for the Playboy article? He won't say. He does not answer my email on another topic. Those of us who share important feminist beliefs deserve to know what the resolution of the conflict is, in the minds of the Shannons and Wizards of the cities. What are you thinking? How do you resolve the conflict between our Minnesota values and Franken's work? Al Franken joked about rape. What do you say to teens about that? Withdrawing your support of Franken on the basis of further reflection will send an important message to these teens. By endorsing Al Franken, Minnesota Democrats are telling young men and women they really have no guidance for internet use, and will tolerate any level of violence or exploitation youth may create for publication on video server technology. This goes directly to a major Problem of our Day - violent children fight videos that are created by children themselves and posted on liveleak.com or youtube.com. Norm Coleman consistently upholds Minnesota values. McCollum was elected to the US House in 2000 after years in the State legislature. Klobuchar was elected in 2006 to the US Senate after being a county attorney. Both of these Democrats support Al Franken. I can address your off topic concerns on other Al Franken threads. This Al Franken thread is for women to answer the critical Al Franken questions I posed as a topic. ... And lighten up! http://www.nrsc.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1503 I'll leave you with an uplifting Reagan video. Enjoy! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b7b_1192595474 Jamie Delton Summit U
Jamie, since you keep baiting us by claiming to have "important feminist
beliefs," you may as well share what they are. Do your beliefs include a
woman's right to a safe and legal abortion? Do you also support access to
affordable contraception, on demand and without apology? How about equal pay
for equal work? The right of lesbian women to legally marry their partners?
Hm?
I have already commented in detail on my experience working with Al Franken. I
have found some of his writings to be tacky, but I have found his actions to be
consistent with his support for women's issues. You, on the other hand, claim
to care about Minnesota values, yet your party endorsed a man convicted of an
attack on his wife for a state Senate seat. Does anyone see the conflict
between word and deed there? Another feminist priority is ending the secrecy
and tacit acceptance of domestic violence in our culture. What message does
that endorsement send women of lower profile than Heidi Olson? Will they seek
the medical and legal help they need? Why would they, when they read that
Olson is being endorsed to seek an even higher office than before his
conviction?
If you consider protecting women's eyeballs from the word "blowjob" to be an
important feminist belief, then you haven't met very many feminists.
Shannon Drury
F-R-N
Minneapolis
Marks notes:
> DFL women politicians who support Franken can surely give reasons for so
doing.
> It is very, very unlikely that any of them base their support on their
critiques
> of Franken's writing. They do not deserve to be misdescribed as groupies from
> someone apparently trying to prove he's a true Republican by virtue of his
> inability to label writing correctly and his ability to take snide,
> juvenile pot shots at women politicians of other parties.
This coming from Ms. Juvenile potshot herself. Oy.
Look, I think it's you that characterized the women as "groupies" (by
mischaracterizing Mr. Delton's remarks); I think it's much more accurate to say
that the women involved, like most urban DFLers of all genders and levels of
intelligence, will pretty much vote for anything the DFL endorses - farm
animals, sets of wind-up chattering teeth, construction refuse, whatever.
That's not being a "groupie". It's being a kool-aid sotted true believer. And
the fact that Franken's support among DFLers is so tepid, given that bit of
background, says something; Franken's in trouble, and all of the DFL's
whip-cracking and leash-yanking isn't getting the proles in line.
While as a former freelance writer I don't much care what he wrote for Playboy,
I note that Jamie quite aptly asks what those "reasons" for supporting Franken
are; that the "reasons" are pretty interchangeable with pretty much any DFLer
(and, among DFL women, seem to all link back to "he supports the DFL civil
sacrament of infanticide", which is neither unique nor much of a profile in
courage).
Asch? Well, he brings the Four Horsement of the Aschpocalypse to the
discussion, as (predictably and tiresomely) usual: condescension,
misinformation, arrogance and pedantism:
> As a Republican, Jamie is ill suited to rank our DFL women.
Actually, as a taxpayer and a participant in our civil society, he has exactly
the same qualifications as you do - much as it must gall you that your career
at "Common Cause" didn't silence dissent even more.
> First, he
> doesn't even know we are DFLers not Democrats;
Rotten tomato, rotten tomahto.
> As the NPR poll yesterday shows, interesting things may be
> happening.
> The tie between Franken and Coleman is interesting on
> several levels.
> The tie itself is a shift in the numbers. The party
> distribution with
> about half DFL and a third Republican is either a sampling
> error or a
> shift in party identification similar to those being seen
> in states with
> party registration.
Take "sampling error". Given that 95% of Republicans (according to other
polls) support Coleman while Franken has about 70-odd percent of DFLers'
support, that'll give you the "tie". And polls of registered voters always
overrepresent Democrats. When you start seeing "likely voter" polls, things
get back to reality quickly.
> Future polling will let us know what reality may be.
The only poll that matters is this coming November. And Franken is going to
lose, and he's going to lose by double digits, or very nearly so.
Marks write:
> In a previous incarnation, I might have been a bar room brawler.
Not sure if this is supposed to be a portent of violence. If so, it's nothing
Twin Cities Republicans aren't used to.
Finally - Shannon Drury writes:
> Jamie, since you keep baiting us by claiming to have "important feminist
> beliefs," you may as well share what they are.
Not to speak for Mr. Delton, but speaking for myself - the best feminist in the
Twin Cities, and certainly the foremost one on this forum - they are "that
women and men be equal in the eyes of the law, and not hindered from achieving
their potential due to discrimination against their gender". Women shouldn't
be discriminated against in the workplace any more than men should be in family
court.
I have a daughter, and a step-daughter in law, so this is in no way academic to
me.
But...
> Do your beliefs include a
> woman's right to a safe and legal abortion?
Oh, so THAT is the sine qua non of "feminism?" The sacrament of infanticide?
"Teminism" shouldn't be about infantilizing women.
> Do you also support access
> to affordable contraception, on demand and without apology?
Hm. A generation or two of sex education has told most of us that that's a
gender-neutral issue. Not sure when "feminists" decided to seize that issue
and haul it back to the Victorian era for us.
> How about
> equal pay for equal work?
Women largely have that, and have for quite some time. Men and women who have
similar experience, background, credentials, training and time on the job
(including time taken off to raise families) earn within the margin of error
from each other. And while men tend to dominate fields like engineering,
computer programming and other middle class areas (women traditionally tend to
go into humanities and other lower-paying jobs, which is a matter of choice
rather than a social pathology), since the out-of-control feminization of
primary and secondary education has made education such a hostile place for
boys, around 60% of postsecondary undergraduates are now women. So the notion
that women get paid less for equal work, which has been a matter of selective
manipulation of data for some time, is also soon to be just plain wrong.
> The right of lesbian women to legally marry
> their partners? Hm?
> You, on the other hand, claim to care about Minnesota values, yet your
> party endorsed a man convicted of an attack on his wife for a state
> Senate seat.
Olson wasn't convicted of "attacking" anyone; his assault was verbal. And his
endorsement has caused a lot of conflict in the GOP; your misreporting of these
facts is both inaccurate and inflammatory.
And, by the way, misleading; as many as half of the domestic abuse charges
brought during divorce proceedings are false, and almost all of them are
brought by women. We don't see much caterwauling about demands for equality
*there*, though, do we?
> Another feminist priority is ending the secrecy and tacit acceptance of
> domestic violence in our culture.
A statement that could only come from someone whose entire understanding of the
domestic court system can only come from DFL Feminist Caucus whining. Men, as
a rule, are considered guilty until proven innocent in domestic court; indeed,
while women initiate half of all domestic violence, it's vanishingly rare for a
women to be convicted, no matter how egregious their offence.
Equality, my ass.
And finally:
> If you consider protecting women's eyeballs from the word
> "b*****b" to be an important feminist belief, then you haven't met very
> many feminists.
Er, I don't care about protecting women's eyes from anything, but this is
putatively a family forum (hahaha).
If you'd been a Republican, you'd already have been warned or suspended for
writing that.
Mitch Berg
The Midway
Yeah, What HE said!
My question is
Is a porno livelihood exploitive of women?
Yes or no?
Are jokes about rape okay as long as they are "not on the record"?
Yes or no?
Shannon: you have prioritized the items that you mention above, over these 2
items.
You endorse on behalf of others a candidate, Al Franken, who in the past
flouted these 2 items, and who knows what other feminist principles, for his
own monetary interest and who now refuses comment.
You endorse on behalf of others a candidate, Al Franken, who has no record of
winning the items you desire.
You endorse on behalf of others a candidate, Al Franken, on the basis of
promises and pledge cards alone.
Do we have that right?
Jamie Delton
Summit U
Miss Marks wrote:
> You cannot critique modern Jewish
> satire by virtue of your DNA
What?
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
>> Given that 95% of Republicans (according to other polls) >> support Coleman while Franken has about 70-odd percent >> of DFLers' support, that'll give you the "tie" Mr. Berg, again, fudges the numbers (by disclaiming "according to other polls" ) to try and create a reality that doesn't exist. But we know you can't take a number from one poll and compare it to a different number from another, So lets try apples and apples ""71 percent of the Democrats surveyed said they were supporting Franken. That compares to 81 percent of Republicans who say they'll vote for Coleman. "" MNGOP, where 95% = 81% ""Franken is going to lose, and he's going to lose by double digits"" You're right, might was well move along then, nothing to see here. No campaigning necessary as you have other races you need to work on and no sense wasting valuable resources on this one. ""speaking for myself - the best feminist in the Twin Cities, and certainly the foremost one on this forum "" And I am the best Conservative and foremost one on this forum . . . because I said so! ""Olson wasn't convicted of "attacking" anyone; his assault was verbal."" Only a MNGOPer thinks an 'attack' has to be physical to be an attack. But just for the sake of clarity, let's go to the tape: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/12/12/olson/ """ According to a criminal complaint, Olson's wife told sheriff's deputies that her husband pushed her to the ground three times during an argument Nov. 12 at their home. Deputies spotted a fresh bruise. Olson has said he grabbed his wife by the shoulders before "placing her on the ground," according to the criminal complaint. """" More from the post trial debrief: http://wcco.com/topstories/Mark.Olson.state.2.368782.html ""Mark Olson's attorney, Jill Clark, during her closing arguments, asked jurors to find that her client didn't intend to hurt or frighten his wife when the two argued and eventually became physical."" Sheesh, even his own attorney acknowledged the physical nature of the assault. But you stick to your story, it makes it easier to show how out of touch the Right can really be. Truth and facts can be pesky things . . . . KR 'Flash' Schiebel http://Centrisity.com Hamline/Midway, St. Paul, MN
Mrs. Shannon Drury wrote:
> Jamie, since you keep baiting us by claiming to have "important feminist
> beliefs," you may as well share what they are. Do your beliefs include a
> woman's right to a safe and legal abortion?
Do you believe the estimated 48 million abortions since 1973 is a moral
question that our society must address? Do you believe it is an intrinsic
evil that a child in utero can be aborted for any reason at all, including
sacrificing the child for a career or education? Do you believe there should
be any limitations on abortions? Do you believe that taxpayers should fund
abortions against their religious and moral beliefs?
> Do you also support access to
> affordable contraception, on demand and without apology?
"Contraception" is not defined; nor are the methods of contraception; nor is
"on demand without apology"; nor is what "access" is and for whom.
> How about equal pay for equal work?
You have not defined an objective measurement of "equal pay" and "equal
work".
> The right of lesbian women to legally marry their partners?
There is no "right" of homosexual women to "marry" each other, as there is
absolutely no precedent for same sex marriage in Anglo-American
jurisprudence or in the Judeo-Christian cultural hybrid of the United
States.
Because this is off-topic, I will conclude my argument here.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
Jamie the answer to your questions might be simple, since the questions are simple and straight forward. However, just because you define something as porn doesn't make it so. Also, the fact that a couple of hundred words are published in, what some define as, a porn publication does not make those words porn. It used to be said that people read Playboy for its articles. I don't know if that is still fact. It's been so ling since I even thought about the magazine's existence. I do know that Playboy was always considered to have top quality highly critical articles. I don't know if that is still the case or if that was the Case when Franken's article was published. I don't even know if this article was even in this category. However, a highly regarded work does not become something else because of where its published. It must stand on its own merits. Public standards may change over time. But that doesn't mean a centuries old statute is pornographic just because you or some well known personalty like Newt Gingrich thinks it is. Mike Fratto Payne Phalen Please help those who don't get enough to eat. http://oyh.org http://hungersolutions.org The future depends more on what we do between now and then Than what we did in the past.
Gentlemen:
The safety and availability of abortion and contraception will remain a core
tenet of the feminist movement as long as it's women who get pregnant. Period.
I look not to the Judeo-Christian tradition in determining my ethics, but to
secular logic that tells me to look forward, not backward; to move towards
acceptance and dignity for more people on this planet, not fewer. As I recall,
the Bible was also used to justify slavery.
And because I know you will appreciate this, I am not a Mrs., despite being
happily married to a man who has had the honor of being called pussy-whipped on
Freerepublic.com. I'm also flattered to have been labeled "inaccurate and
inflammatory" by the one and only Mitch Berg. I've come a long way, baby.
Shannon Drury
F-R-N
Minneapolis
Sorry, missed this for reply as it got trapped in the spam filter for
some reason.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:48 AM, Jamie Delton <jd@tcinternet.net> wrote:
> Franken's piece was porn.
> If it is anything in addition to porn, it is parody. It is not satire.
Voltaire is satire.
You're wrong. It is not porn.
From Merriam Webster : porn - the depiction of erotic behavior (as in
pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
I just went back to check that piece by Franken to make sure I wasn't
misremembering it. I wasn't. There is nothing in that article that
inspires one to sexual excitement or that anyone would seek out to
masturbate to, therefore it is not porn. Maybe some out-there
fetishist would get into it, but that's like calling an article about
shoes porn.
Heck, the article itself even says it isn't porn.
"I could describe the incredible sex the three of us had, but this is
a piece of journalism about the future of pornography and not one of
those cheesy letters from a horny reader."
(Which, given the amount of the cheese in the article is definitely satirical)
Or, this part of the article which attempts to prove that PLAYBOY is
"erotica" rather than "porn" using some made up statistics (although,
I'd bet the numbers aren't too far off reality):
"According to the IPS, the average PLAYBOY reader spends just 43
percent of his time with each issue masturbating. At Hustler, that
figure is 81 percent. Of course, this applies only to PLAYBOY the
magazine. The IPS estimates that nearly 98 percent of an average
viewer's time while watching Playboy TV is spent masturbating."
*heh* That's funny.
OK, that humor isn't for everyone, but I'd bet that any guy who has
ever wanked to a photo got at least a minor chuckle and I'd guess that
most of those women who are OK with the fact that most men have, at
some time or another, wanked to a photo probably got a chuckle as
well, especially if they've ever heard the line "I get it for the
articles".
Clearly PLAYBOY has some pornography in it, but this article isn't it.
It has a couple sexual references, but they're just silly, not at all
"intended to cause sexual excitement".
Btw, if those references make it porn to you, you'd better lock up
your bible because there's a lot of sexual references in there, some
of which might be seen as more titillating, albeit, in the somewhat
stilted manner that verse translated from another language attains.
- phædrus
Mrs. Shannon Drury wrote:
> The safety and availability of abortion and contraception will remain a core
> tenet of the feminist movement as long as it's women who get pregnant.
Period.
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to
women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we
see fit."
(Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, in Howe's
diary, Harvard University Library)
"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is
something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn
child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has
been greatly wronged."
(Mattie Brinkerhoff, The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869)
Now, Mrs. Drury, as long as you are asking questions, answer these:
1. Do you believe the estimated 48 million abortions since 1973 is a moral
question that our society must address?
2. Do you believe it is an intrinsic evil that a child in utero can be
aborted for any reason at all, including sacrificing the child for a career
or education?
3. Do you believe there should be any limitations on abortions?
4. Do you believe that taxpayers should fund abortions against their
religious and moral beliefs?
And now, let's see if you really are an equity feminist:
5. Do you believe that abortion is exploitation of women?
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
I don't know about you, but this is really fun.
To Mr Krasnoff, a longtime fan:
1. I think it is appropriate to learn how increased abortion rates can be a
symptom of larger systems of social inequalities, yes. But as a medical
procedure? No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. No.
Mrs. Drury
F-R-N
Minneapolis
Mrs. Shannon Drury, a self-described "feminist" who writes for the Minnesota
Woman's Press, believes that a child in utero can be aborted for any reason
whatsoever, including to further a woman's career or education; there should
be no limitations on abortions; people are to be forced to pay for abortions
against their religious and moral beliefs; and that abortion is not
exploitation of women.
Mrs. Drury's beliefs are nothing more than amoral and nihilist.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
Did anyone attend the event below? Can we have a report on this event? I'm interested in all the "undecided friends" that attended and what they felt and thought, feel and think. Thank you! http://www.alfranken.com/content/events/ September 05, 2008 Women for Franken Reception With Al and Franni Franken! 5:30pm - 7pm JoJo's Rise and Wine 12501 Nicollet Ave # 100, Burnsville, MN 55337 [ View map ] Event info: Come meet Al and Franni Franken in Burnsville. The event co-hosted by Teresa Daly, Mimi Daly Larson, and Susan Moravec, will include featured guests Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Representative Shelley Madore, Gayle Carlson, and Representative Sandra Masin. It will be a great opportunity to hear Al speak and meet some of the leaders in Women for Franken. Please leave your checkbook at home, but bring an undecided friend or someone who may be interested in getting more involved. RSVP to Natalie at 952.548.6054 or <email obscured>. Jamie Delton Summit U