Commentary
Franken missed an opportunity to be kind to a witness
by Carrie DaklinA friend sent me the clip of Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., questioning Tom Minnery during last week's Senate hearings on the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Minnery is senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family. Franken is a former comedian. I remember watching him on "Saturday Night Live." His timing is impeccable. He also appears to be a consummate politician, an excellent spinner of rhetoric and facts.
Don't get me wrong. The senator has been elected by the people of Minnesota to represent us -- albeit in an election that, sadly, was a poster child for the polarization in both our state and our nation. I voted for him. He deserves respect. You don't have to agree with him, you don't have to like his politics, but you do have to respect him. He has earned that privilege.
And he is a great speaker. Not long ago, I heard him talk at a function celebrating the legacy of Hubert Humphrey. He was a wonderful raconteur: self-deprecating and charming, warm, witty and funny.
And that was an appropriate forum for humor. A legal proceeding is not.
I have testified in a trial. It is not fun, it is not exciting. It is stressful. You are out of your element. Your adversary is salivating to get you to say something he can spin, some little something he can magnify out of proportion and use to his advantage. As an experienced paralegal I knew this when I testified, and I was in hyper-vigilant mode because I knew it. Imagine what it is like for someone who has no knowledge of the courtroom.
I have no knowledge of congressional hearings. I have never been to one. I can only hope that if I did have to testify before the Senate, whoever was questioning me would be kind, would recognize that this was his sandbox, not mine, and that, as a representative of our country, he would not embarrass me for his own purposes.
Sadly, when Tom Minnery testified, that was not the kind of treatment he received from Al Franken.
Franken questioned Minnery about his citing a Department of Health and Human Services report that stated, in essence, that children do better in a two-parent household. I think most people would agree with the basic premise that two parents can provide more income, and more emotional support, to their children -- since, we hope, the spouses are supporting each other in kind. As a single parent, I know what it is like to be at the helm alone.
Still, Franken didn't end there, but baited Minnery about the report: "It says that nuclear families -- not opposite sex married families -- are associated with those positive outcomes. Isn't it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?"
Minnery replied, "I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife."
"It doesn't," said Franken, getting a laugh from the audience.
Sen. Franken then chastised Minnery's assumption of the definition of nuclear families, and stated, essentially, that if Minnery had so misinterpreted the information in the HHS report, then all of his testimony was subject to question.
A fine performance, Sen. Franken, but here's the rub: In case you missed it in those DOMA hearings, the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. So I would think it might have been reasonable for Minnery to assume that a federal report had followed federal law.
As of the date of the report (December 2010), only five states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex marriage. That is a mere 10 percent of the states. Which leads me to conclude that, on average, 9 out of 10 people would assume "nuclear family" meant a household headed by one man and one woman.
In addition, Minnery looks to be in his late 60s or so -- a generation that grew up with the paradigm that a marriage was between a man and a woman. Is it too much to grant him generational deference? Is it too much to be gracious? The man is who he is, partly because he was raised when he was.
Humiliation and respect are mutually exclusive. I am afraid that in his zest for the issue at hand, Sen. Franken, wittingly or not, fostered humiliation instead of respect.
The point here is not where you fall on DOMA or gay marriage. The point is that Franken, sadly, did exactly what we as a nation are finding so frustrating in government today: He polarized the situation. He escalated it. And that is not an appropriate role for the powerful position he occupies.
Franken's response no doubt delighted supporters of same-sex marriage. But people who are on the fence may have had a very different reaction. Anyone who wanted to hear and understand the subject with an open mind likely would have been offended by Franken's dismissal of Minnery and would have had all the excuse they needed to walk away.
There is no need to be obsequious or to compromise your principles. But if Franken or any other politician hopes to effect change in this country, it has got to be with the understanding that everyone has a right to his beliefs, whether or not they are beliefs that you share. And one thing is certain: The hostility that we feel in this country is not likely to recede until both sides are willing to surrender their verbal weapons.
As my grandmother used to say, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."
----
Carrie Daklin is a Twin Cities-based freelance writer and a source in MPR's Public Insight Network.
Comments (82)
I am trying to see your point of view, Ms. Daklin. A repectful tone was taken by Monica Meyer from OutFront MN last Friday on Midday when debating with a representative from the National Organization for Marriage. That is the tone I would like to see all those advocating for equality take. However, Focus on the Family is attempting to keep families apart, hardly a respectful action, despite respectful-sounding rhetoric. Their very premise shows an utter lack of respect. Would you consider someone to be acting respectfully toward you if they were trying to prevent you from marrying the person you love?
Additionally, I have a hard time believing that the Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy for Focus on the Family is unfamiliar with the tone of government hearings. You can try to get me to feel sorry for him, but it seems likely that he was more prepared for this intense grilling than you were when testifying in a trial.
Mr. Minnery got busted...with his OWN study.
His supporters are merely mad that he was caught and who caught him.
This reminds me of:
Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8)
Where David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values who the defense called as it's "expert" witness during the trial.
Under cross-examination Mr. Blankenhorn "admitted he knew of no study that showed children reared by gay couples fared worse than those raised by heterosexual parents."
He also allowed that gay marriage would probably "improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."
So, what was the point of the ban (Prop 8) again? The only other witness for the defense focused on how the judicial system should regard referendums.
Folks like Mr. Minnery and Mr. Blankenhorn and by default the organizations they represent, perpetuate the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.
You are very naive to think that Mr. Minnery didn't know that the nuclear family included same sex couples as well. The entire study had to do with having two parents not having two heterosexual parents. Focus On The Family ignores every study that shows that children raised by same sex couples are just as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual couples. The study in question had to do with a single parent home versus a two parent home. Focus on the Family tried to distort the facts in this case and use a study that had nothing to really do with same sex marriage but rather single parents to make a case against same sex parenting. They were caught and they deserved it. I have no sympathy for Mr. Minnery. DOMA denies financial security not only to the same sex couple but to the adopted children of that couple as well in the event of the death of one of the spouses. If the witness had been using this study to disqualify your marriage and disadvantage your children then I'm sure that you would see the problem with quoting a study that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Senator Franken is a sitting Senator, not a comedian. So how is his past profession pertinent? What did that bigot from the Focus on Family used to do for a living, and why did you not print this fact. If Franken had been a former school teacher, one could then say he "schooled" the bigot, but sadly he was just a comedian (though I think Franken would classify himself as a satirist, not as you did, a comedian).
Well done, Ms Daklin! As I understand your comments, the issue of DOMA is really not your point, the hearing could just as well have been about the national debt. You are pointing rather to the manner in which an invited guest was received in a senatorial hearing. With Senator Franken's manner of hospitality, will it not become increasingly difficult to get folks to testify freely and openly? When one knows his views and expertise will be attacked, why would he disclose them? Would not the consequence be that our officials are deprived of any idea or research that does not agree when their own already cherished viewpoint? It seems to me our country's leaders need to hear more civil exchange and discusssion of opposing ideas, not less.
Your description of the interaction at the hearing doesn't sound like something to write a commentary about. It doesn't sound to me like Franken was being disrespectful. And I agree with others here who say that Minnery would have been very much accustomed to tough questioning at a hearing like that, and that he is the one being disrespectful to gay families and their supporters.
Dictionary.com defines a bigot as an intolerant person.
Intolerence is unacceptable on EITHER side of the aisle.
I haven't read the DHH study but it seems that the study used the term "nuclear family" but did not define that term. So that would leave everybody free to use their own definition. Anybody surprised that we argue about it?
While I enjoyed your article , I think you are too lady like to enter the sordid world of political blogging where only the strong survive .
Franken's' comments don't surprise me . Part of the socialist plan is to destroy the nuclear family at any cost and they have been trying for 90 years with quite a bit of success .
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
Did you know that Focus on the Family is considered and listed as a right wing hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and a report was just released by the government about the danger of right wing hate groups .
Did you know that socialist George Soros who funds the Southern Poverty Law Center also donates to Al Franken who was just returning a favor to Soros ?
Really Miss Daklin, your naivety in this article is quite remarkable. I have to assume you have never read any of the countless articles, diatribes and hate-speak that continually issue forth from FothF. Don't forget, this group has been labeled a Hate Group as mentioned in an earlier post. If you think for one minute Mr. Minnery didn't attend this meeting with the sole intent of maligning the notion of marriage equality with skewed facts and figures, you are truly mislead. For FothF, marriage equality and DOMA are covers for their true objective, the vilification and destruction of every gay person in this country. Al Franken, to me, is a hero for, among many reasons, this one: his razor sharp questioning of Minnery exposes the lie of FothF and, perhaps, will one day help one gay kid who might otherwise have considered suicide due to their vitriol.
"Minnery's assumption of the definition of nuclear families"
See this is where you're wrong, Ms. Daklin. That wasn't Minnery's assumption. He knew exactly what the report said and, more importantly, what it didn't. Organizations like FOF are rabidly anti-gay and they make a lot of money from twisting facts, inventing statistics and flat out lying. This is what they do and it's what we've come to expect from their blogs, articles and fear-mongering printed propaganda. But Minnery was testifying in front of a senate committee. He didn't just make an honest mistake, he intentionally misrepresented data from the study. He was lying and Franken was right call him out on it. Minnery deserved to be humiliated. It's nothing compared to the damage he tries to inflict on the LGBT population on a daily basis.
"Minnery's assumption of the definition of nuclear families"
See this is where you're wrong, Ms. Daklin. That wasn't Minnery's assumption. He knew exactly what the report said and, more importantly, what it didn't. Organizations like FOF are rabidly anti-gay and they make a lot of money from twisting facts, inventing statistics and flat out lying. This is what they do and it's what we've come to expect from their blogs, articles and fear-mongering printed propaganda. But Minnery was testifying in front of a senate committee. He didn't just make an honest mistake, he intentionally misrepresented data from the study. He was lying and Franken was right call him out on it. Minnery deserved to be humiliated. It's nothing compared to the damage he tries to inflict on the LGBT population on a daily basis.
Minnery was using a study that has nothing to do with same sex marriage or same sex couples as evidence that straight couples are better than gay couples. Franken was right to call him out for it.
Ms. Daklin, I can understand your point of view. I get the feeling that you don't really want to get involved in the issue, except that you thought Senator Franken was rude in his treatment of Mr. Minnery. I get it, I really do. But what you have either not known or decided to leave out of your article is that Mr. Minnery was using the study as part of his testimonial evidence. You would think that someone would know the information in that study fairly well, such as the definitions being used for certain terms. Most studies do put those definitions into the study so there can be no confusion. The fact is, Mr. Minnery didn't do his homework fully and he got called on it. Now, if a teacher finds out that you haven't done your homework, don't you think they're going to believe that anything else you say is quite possibly wrong, because of that lack of knowledge? Next time you write an opinion piece, make sure YOU'VE done your homework.
Seriously? Someone presents testimony against an entire group of people using information he knows to be a lie and you balk at Sen Franken's calling him out on it? Honestly?!! I'm sure that Sen Franken did his research beforehand because groups like FOTF, NOM, FRC, etc CONSTANTLY provide data they know is false, trying to justify their hateful claims. Yours is typical of the response of people on their side - never listening, never reasoning, just shouting hatred at the top of their voice. And since when did Minnesota become the hotbead of ignorance in this country?
Seriously? Someone presents testimony against an entire group of people using information he knows to be a lie and you balk at Sen Franken's calling him out on it? Honestly?!! I'm sure that Sen Franken did his research beforehand because groups like FOTF, NOM, FRC, etc CONSTANTLY provide data they know is false, trying to justify their hateful claims. Yours is typical of the response of people on their side - never listening, never reasoning, just shouting hatred at the top of their voice. And since when did Minnesota become the hotbead of ignorance in this country?
Amateur sports writer Carrie Daklin wrote this article defending her friend Tom Minnery because he got caught lying in both his written and his verbal testimony to Congress.
Daklin skipped all the research required for this story, and is ignorant of all the fundamentals necessary to write about this: how such hearings work, the purpose of this hearing, the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), how it got passed, why courts found it unconstitutional, why opponents seek repeal, the government report which Minnery falsified, the video of the hearing, and the untruths that Minnery both spoke and wrote to Congress.
The government report confirmed that children excel equally well, regardless of whether their parents are an opposite-sex or same-sex couple. But Minnery testified that the report said the opposite: children excel with opposite-sex couples, and suffer with same-sex couples.
When Senator Franken caught Minnery lying, read to him from the report, and asked him to explain his testimony, Minnery's only excuse was that he misunderstood the report, and accidentally thought "nuclear" meant "opposite-sex." But such a mistake is impossible for Minnery, because, the entire campaign he runs for Focus on the Family is based on intentionally misusing these very words every time that he testifies.
Daklin excuses Minnery's lying as his religious beliefs, saying, but mere beliefs don't justify giving false testimony to Congress.
Shame on Carrie Daklin, and on Minnesota Public Radio.
Does Ms. Daklin really believe that if Minnery had behaved this way in a court, no judge would ever have been sarcastic to him? What Minnery did is called "Bearing false witness against your neighbor." Hello?
My studies of the ex-gay industry have included hearing Mr. Minnery speak at a Love Won Out conference.
The conference, attended by a few dozen self-identified ex-gays, many more conservatives with openly gay family members, another couple dozen leaders of ex-gay ministries, and a smattering of gay observers inside and protesters outside, happened June 10, 2006, in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC.
The day opened with Joseph Nicolosi teaching long-discredited "truths" about men becoming gay due to distant fathers and/or childhood sexual abuse. It closed with Tom Minnery covering the political landscape.
Minnery wasn't there as a neighborly grandpa who organized anti-gay postcard campaigns on his days off. He was a Vice President of Focus on the Family, the mega-million dollar organization which launched the conference and had been at the front of the pack of anti-gay orgs promoting DOMA in 1996.
He spoke in militaristic terms of gay activists determined to do violence to traditional families. He challenged conservatives engage in the culture war against the evil of anything remotely gay-affirming.
In my mind, the reason that Al Franken's questioning of Minnery garnered so much attention is that Franken just barely scratched the surface of Minnery's career-long, arguably intentional, distortion of scientific study results.
To his credit, Franken didn't treat Minnery like a slightly-misinformed anti-gay postcard-sending neighbor.
Tom Minnery was making a point based on his flawed interpretation of the study: that it excluded same-sex married couples with children. In fact the point he was making was entirely predicated on this misinterpretation. But the study did not say what he said it did, and it did not support the point he was trying to make.
Mr. Minnery SHOULD have been mortified and humiliated by the experience, either because he intentionally tried to misrepresent and mislead, or because he did some very, very sloppy preparation for his testimony. The point that Ms. Daklin is missing is that the professional anti-gay lobby do this kind of thing ALL THE TIME. Senator Franken got the facts right, corrected Mr. Minnery, and chastised him for making incorrect claims. How on earth do (1) being properly prepared and (2) being right make Franken the bad guy???
I've seen this video clip multiple times. Franken was not disrespectful or antagonistic! He didn't raise his voice or anything. Considering that he showed Minnery as a liar, I think he was very kind to the man. I wouldn't have been so kind to someone who clearly distorts facts to meet their own agenda. Minnery's behavior is disgusting.
Why is it that when someone on the conservative side of the aisle is called out, the person doing the call-out is immediately labeled as hostile? Ms (or Mrs) Daklin is one of the reasons I don't listen to MPR anymore! Her article belongs on the Drudge Report or some other right-wing blog.
Mary Ruth: If by " testify freely and openly" you mean "play fast and loose with the truth", then we can only hope it DOES make it more difficult for them.
"I have no knowledge of Congressional hearings." That's apparent. When someone testifies it is supposed to be true. Franken's outing of him was fully appropriate. Minnery's disrespect is appalling.
First NPR airs a POS report questioning the fact that so-called "ex-gay" is a failure and now this tripe vainly defending a hatemonger from scrutiny by a highly intelligent Minnesota senator!
What's next? An article claiming that Michelle Bachman's campaign is proving her to be a genius?
Let me start off by saying that I am a personal friend of the above writer. She called me yesterday and wanted me to weigh in on this as it is getting attention she hadn't expected. I can tell you that, by and large, Carrie Daklin is not anti-gay in the least though this article apparently is now being used by NOM to further their message of intolerance. This was not her intent or message. And, no she hasn't been paid by NOM to write this article.
Carrie, other than that you seem to be singling out Sen. Franken for being uncivil in an arena where where this is done CONSTANTLY and to a much, much higher degree. I don't think Franken was out of line in the least.
This is not a matter of what "9 out of 10 people would assume nuclear family" means. This is about Tom Minnery using a study to put forward his agenda. Moreover, it is that he used a specific point from a study and misrepresented its findings.
What you need to understand is what a tremendous enemy Focus On The Family has historically been to the gay community. Focus On The Family has NEVER been civil to the gay community. I see no misstep in Sen. Al Franken's decorum. He was as civil as need be to a such a manipulative, hateful spokesliar.
You are only citing Sen. Al Franken in this article as being uncivil. Since you aren't citing any other instances NOM has likely taken your article as dog-whistle code for the anti-gay set to rally around.
A supposed 'man of god' presents knowingly false testimony to Congress in an attempt to keep certain citizens treated as less than human by the United States Government, and what Carrie Dalkin sees as the 'sin' here is Mr. Franken calling the liar out on his lies???
Is it any wonder that in 2011, an entire segment of the population has to beg and plead for their basic humanity when people like Carrie continue to pull the blinders over their eyes to maintain their bigotry.
Truly, truly pathetic, Carrie Daklin.
Truly.
I don't agree with all that Minnery testified to. I think that there is a lot of couching the disagreement over ssm with "what is best for kids," and using that simply as reason against gay marriage. What is best for kids, is a solid, stable, loving environment, and that can be provided in many many kinds of families. However, If I read a report that was based on findings (and I did) that were gathered between 2001-2007, and know that only one state in the U.S. allowed gay marriage at that time, I too, would have to assume that the findings were not about same sex couples with children, since at that time the study was concluded (2007), 49 states did not recognize same sex marriage. That's just a simple fact of what was happening at that time-and since the report clearly stated that the couples were "married", again that means that in 49 states-the majority of the United States-that report applies to couples who consist of a man and a woman. Minnery should have responded as such when Franken questioned him. Instead Franken was just as guilty of manipulating the report. So his one-two punch lacked merit, when HE read into the record that the report considered MARRIED couples as a nuclear family. He also thanked every witness for coming and then said, Oh except one, making a reference to Mr. Minnery. Really tacky. Hate begets hate. And is inappropriate from either side.
When did MPR donors start paying for gay bashing shills? MPR must be so proud that this gay bashing violence inciting propaganda is being used by National Organization for Marriage Inequality to beg for more gay bashing blood money. Of course that was the purpose of this disinformation propaganda http://www.nomblog.com/11942/ How much did NOM pay Daklin to help them incite more gay bashing violence. Here's an idea MPR fire Daklin and let her go work for the NOMZIS - she does a good job for them. Hey homo-hot--&bothered heterosupremacist tyrannical theocRAT Daklin the blood of gay bashed Minnesotans is dripping off your gay bashing hands. Daklin take your gay bashing opinion and shove it down your gay bashing throat & choke on it.
Ms. Dalkin, your commentary here deserves the attention it is receiving because it is clearly some attempt to change the history of what happened at this hearing. Mr. Minnery either failed to adequately prepare for this testimony and didn't read a scientific study he was citing, or he attempted, deliberately, to mislead members of Congress and the American people. Either situation is unacceptable given that he had sworn an oath to be honest.
I have not testified before Congress, but I have testified before several state legislative committees. It can be a bit intimidating, so in my prepared remarks, I am diligent to be accurate in the information I provide. Mr. Minnery, whatever his motivation, did not make that attempt.
Senator Franken was respectful, but he had done his homework, and called out Mr. Minnery on his dishonesty. He did not ambush Minnery, as Sen. Franken was citing Minnery's written testimony, submitted in advance. I agree Mr. Minnery was probably humiliated. I would be too if I were caught lying to Congress or a legislative committee, a client, acquaintance, or anyone else, but I would blame myself for the attempted deceit, and not the person questioning me.
I see you had a friend weigh in to assure us all that you are not anti-gay, but when you attempt to blame a bigot's humiliation on someone else instead of where it belongs, you support that bigotry. As my grandfather would say, "if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
There are organizations out there, such as Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage, who peddle distortions against the gay community and many of them have been doing it for decades. What Minnery tried to pass off only scratches the surfaces. The problem is exacerbated when people who are not aware of this situation - such as Ms. Daklin - will try to call for some type of civility without fully understanding what they are dealing with. In the future, I suggest that Ms. Daklin research situations like this fully before registering an opinion.
Oh, PLEASE. Minnery embarrassed HIMSELF by trying to lie and misrepresent and obfuscate facts.
You hear that sound, Ms Dakin? That's the sound of nobody caring whether a lying hatemonger got embarrassed when he got called out on his lying and hatemongering.
Ms. Daklin,
Imagine this:
- It was before the Civil War
- You were black
- Mr. A used the bible to justify keeping you as a slave
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
- Then Mr. B aggressively put Mr. A in a logical abyss he could not get out.
- And YOU now claim Mr. B is not so "NICE" !!!?
I see your point that we should try to be nice in an argument of idea. But sometimes the idea is SO REPULSIVE it does not merit respect! CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
SO - I think you are WRONG to defend the guy who tries to defend oppression based on his RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE ! I wonder why you did call that out first and foremost!??? I hope this analogy above may change your mind. Just a small one.
Ms. Daklin,
...
SO - I think you are WRONG to defend the guy who tries to defend oppression based on his RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE !
Typo:
I wonder why you did NOT call that out first and foremost!?
d
I don't understand how Franken was "baiting" Minnery; he was asking the "expert" to clarify his stance, on the record. (He had already been evasive when questioned by another senator.) What is the "baiting" part? And the definition of "nuclear family" was IN THE REPORT he chose to site. So Minnery did not have to guess or suppose or "think" about its definitions. Franken reacted quite a bit more politely than most of us would if someone was lying to our face.
Ms. Daklin,
Your assertions here are laughable. If pointing out that a study is being misrepresented is in fact 'humiliation', we should be charging high school debate teams and their coaches with psychological abuse. Should Senator Franken have postponed the hearing so that a mental health professional could try to prepare this Minnery character for the trauma of being proved wrong?
Seriously, though, regardless of whether Minnery deliberately lied under oath or was too lazy to read his source material, he's shown far less respect to the Senate than might be expected... though in all fairness, it's much more respect than he's shown to gay and lesbian Americans. (The Senate can consider themselves lucky, I guess. )
If you yourself actually don't want to be labelled anti-gay, I would *strongly* suggest that you stop writing ridiculous defences of that sort of people. Publishing this sort of opinion and then having your friends stop by to assure your readers that you're Not Like That is really the wrong way to do it.
And I know the author isn't responsible for what her friends post, here, but what does John mean at 3:11 by stating " I can tell you that, by and large, Carrie Daklin is not anti-gay in the least."
This must be a mis-use of the term "by and large", which means "mostly". Or...what IS he saying? She is "mostly" not anti-gay?
There's a fundamental question of whether Minnery was being "civil" with his testimony, even before you get to the matter of whether he knowingly falsified report data. The object of the hearing was to gather evidence towards deciding whether the federal government should treat married American heterosexual couples and homosexual couples equally. The federal government does not require hetero couples to have children in order to give them federal marriage benefits. Yet Minnery told the Senate that childless hetero couples's gay counterparts shouldn't have equal federal benefits, because according to him, the gay couple won't make good parents. Hello? Minnery's testimony constitutes anti-gay hate speech. His full written testimony is jaw-dropping in its inclusion of blatant and malicious anti-gay animus and bigotry.
John Eller (Minneapolis, MN) writes -- inscrutably -- "I can tell you that, by and large, Carrie Daklin is not anti-gay in the least."
But there is no such thing as anyone being both (a) pro-gay "by and large" and (b) "not anti-gay in the least" because "by and large" and "not in the least" are incompatible measures (and an atrocious misuse of English). Using "by and large" and "in the least" together is like saying Daklin is "mostly" pro-gay and "not at all" anti-gay, which is impossible. If she were "mostly" pro-gay, then she'd also be somewhat anti-gay; and if she were anti-gay "not at all" then she'd more than "mostly" pro-gay. But no mentally healthy person can be of both minds at the same time.
Mr. Eller's estimate of Ms. Daklin's sympathy really isn't important to MPR audiences, so instead of correcting whatever it is that he thinks he might have meant, it's much better if he just gets Ms. Daklin to publicly say exactly where she falls on the pro-/anti- spectrum toward the 31 million Americans that are her fellow LGBT citizens.
The public has a right to ask, and a need to know, but that has to come directly from Daklin, not her friends.
John Eller (Minneapolis, MN) writes -- inscrutably -- "I can tell you that, by and large, Carrie Daklin is not anti-gay in the least."
But there is no such thing as anyone being both (a) pro-gay "by and large" and (b) "not anti-gay in the least" because "by and large" and "not in the least" are incompatible measures (and an atrocious misuse of English). Using "by and large" and "in the least" together is like saying Daklin is "mostly" pro-gay and "not at all" anti-gay, which is impossible. If she were "mostly" pro-gay, then she'd also be somewhat anti-gay; and if she were anti-gay "not at all" then she'd more than "mostly" pro-gay. But no mentally healthy person can be of both minds at the same time.
Mr. Eller's estimate of Ms. Daklin's sympathy really isn't important to MPR audiences, so instead of correcting whatever it is that he thinks he might have meant, it's much better if he just gets Ms. Daklin to publicly say exactly where she falls on the pro-/anti- spectrum toward the 31 million Americans that are her fellow LGBT citizens.
The public has a right to ask, and a need to know, but that has to come directly from Daklin, not her friends.
John Eller (Minneapolis, MN) writes -- inscrutably -- "I can tell you that, by and large, Carrie Daklin is not anti-gay in the least."
But there is no such thing as anyone being both (a) pro-gay "by and large" and (b) "not anti-gay in the least" because "by and large" and "not in the least" are incompatible measures (and an atrocious misuse of English). Using "by and large" and "in the least" together is like saying Daklin is "mostly" pro-gay and "not at all" anti-gay, which is impossible. If she were "mostly" pro-gay, then she'd also be somewhat anti-gay; and if she were anti-gay "not at all" then she'd more than "mostly" pro-gay. But no mentally healthy person can be of both minds at the same time.
Mr. Eller's estimate of Ms. Daklin's sympathy really isn't important to MPR audiences, so instead of correcting whatever it is that he thinks he might have meant, it's much better if he just gets Ms. Daklin to publicly say exactly where she falls on the pro-/anti- spectrum toward the 31 million Americans that are her fellow LGBT citizens.
The public has a right to ask, and a need to know, but that has to come directly from Daklin, not her friends.
John Eller (Minneapolis, MN) admits that the author of this article, Carrie Daklin, is his "personal friend" and that she asked him to defend her here.
Daklin already admitted she's a "free-lance writer," which means people pay her to write material for them, and she admitted that she's never been to and "has no knowledge of" Congressional hearings. So before John Eller --- or anyone else --- can even begin to think about defending her, Ms. Daklin herself needs to answer 15 questions (in the message after this one).
MPR is a public radio station, and neither Daklin nor MPR disclosed any conflicts of interest. Therefore, the public has a right to ask these questions, MPR should have asked them already, the public needs to know the answers, and Daklin and MPR are obligated to provide them.
Finally, the public's rights and needs can't be reduced by calling this article an "opinion" or by claiming "free speech" or by saying Daklin's religious sect allows her to believe whatever she wishes. Her entitlements to opinion, speech, and religion don't cancel the principles of journalism, and they don't reduce MPR's obligation to fully research and to report accurately and objectively.
Ms. Daklin:
1. Who engaged you to write this article?
2. Who funded (or will fund) your payment for it?
3. How much did you (or will you) get paid for writing it;
4. . . . and paid for broadcasting it;
5. . . . and paid for having it re-broadcast/re-published by FOTF, NOM, FRC, ADF, AFA, AFT, TVC, and affiliated hate groups?
6. Who is the "friend" who sent you the clip of the hearing?
7. For what purpose did that "friend" send it to you?
8. What did the "friend" say or write about it?
9. Did you ever watch the entire hearing on which you reported?
10. If you didn't watch the whole hearing, why not?
11. If you did watch the whole hearing, why did you omit reporting that (1) Minnery got caught lying to Congress, (2) he admitted lying, and (3) he excused lying by claiming that he thinks "nuclear family" means "opposite-sex family"?
12. Did you know that pretending to misunderstand these basic English words is the core of the hate campaign Minnery is running against 30 million LGBT Americans?
13. Do you know that this is how Minnery earns his living?
14. Did it occur to you whether you were used and duped?
15. Why do you say that Minnery's age is an excuse for lying to Congress?
16. Five MPR Trustees (Randall Hogan, Ian Friendly, Bradbury Anderson, George Buckley, Steven Fritze) also fund Al Franken's political opponent, Norm Coleman. What's their role in this?
I feel so terrible for Mr. Minnery and FOF. I mean, really, did he have to base his statements on actual facts?
You're absolutely right, Ms. Daklin, why not just assume that "studies" confirm our biases and prejudices, especially when it concerns the rights of other persons or groups we don't like? How mean of Mr. Franken to call him on it. If Mr. Minnery was "invited", that means the Senate was supposed to make him comfortable, right? Just as Fox News does with all the Republican candidates and think tank experts on their payroll.
This liberal madness has to stop. We start questioning the word of good Christians, and the next thing everybody will be questioning Scripture! I mean, this is a democracy, right? Doesn't it mean that the Christian majority gets to tell other people how to live?
Since when does pointing out somebody's deceit constitute as bullying? Senator Franken did his job when he bothered to read the study instead of taking the word of a liar. I find it very interesting that you think the most concerning issue here was Franken's methods of uncovering a lie and not the lie itself. Way to spin!
Let me see if I've gotten this right: someone comes before congress and cites a study to make a point. A senator points out that the conclusion is flawed, because the person who cited the study did not read the study, and assumed it said something it didn't. Senator Franken pointed this out, showing the gentleman's bias in interpreting the study to illustrate his point. He did it in a civil, respectful manner. Is lying and spreading disinformation in testimony before congress acceptable to you, Ms. Daklin, but competent Senators being sharp enough to catch this are not? Is your stance that when potentially damaging, false testimony is given before congress, that you expect the congresspeople to be polite, rather than engaged, and with a reasonable expectati0n of true testimony? I think that you support discrimination against homosexual people, and so you're trying to spin this to appear that the lying SOB who was striving to deny equal rights to American citizens was the Good Guy, and the sharp Senator was the mean liberal Bad Guy. Not to put too fine a point on it, your reasoning is transparently disingenuous.
Maybe Daklin's troubled past led her to write such claptrap:
http://legalectric.org/f/2011/08/daklin-2003-ohio-2231.pdf
If you don't want to be held up to ridcule and scorn in a congressional hearing, don't lie. It's a simple as that. And people who are arguing against the civilrights of gays and homosexual had better be on firm ground when making the case that we should deny rights to people. Shame on your for not calling out these people for being liars and fake. Senator Franken was just doing his job, and doing it well.
I think it more to the point that Mr. Minnery missed an opportunity to tell the truth. And you may catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but does anyone really *want* to catch flies?
"The point here is not where you fall on DOMA or gay marriage. The point is that Franken, sadly, did exactly what we as a nation are finding so frustrating in government today: He polarized the situation. He escalated it. And that is not an appropriate role for the powerful position he occupies. "
No, Ms. Dalkin, what Senator Franken did was what you're supposed to do with a witness: question them on their knowledge of evidence relevant to the matter at hand. If a witness *lies* to misrepresent the nature of the evidence, it is *absolutely* an appropriate role for a senator. The point of a hearing is not to be nice to witnesses. The point is to get to the truth. And Minnery *knew* he was lying.
"Is it too much to grant him generational deference? Is it too much to be gracious?"
The man was lying to promote the suppression of other people's basic human rights. YES, IT'S TOO MUCH. You don't get respect unless you earn it, and his lies had cost him whatever he had earned.
Oh boo hoo... Here we see in all its glory, conservative "political correctness" being mandated by the (not so) "liberal media"...
Boo hoo
Here are rules when testifying before Congress: Don't lie. Don't mislead. Say you don't know if you don't know. Pretty simple really. Basic stuff we learned in kindergarten. Minnery didn't follow those rules and Daklin defends the liar. Ms. Daklin, you need to apologize.
"Sen. Franken then chastised Minnery's assumption of the definition of nuclear families"...
No, he chastised Mr. Minnery's overt misrepresentation of the assumptions and definitions in the study.
This wasn't a mistake; the study referred to biological and adoptive parents, and Mr. Minnery convoluted that into "husband and wife" because that is the political position he wishes to promulgate: that gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are unfit parents. That was no mistake.
I'm trying to see the author's viewpoint on this, and I think I've got it: "When you're caught lying, find something else to distract people from the lie." These last gasps of the religious are certainly the loudest. I'm comfortable saying disco went out with more grace.
Daklin blew it....
It's time to catch liars....and take it to 'em. Every time..
http://www.politicususa.com/en/al-franken-liberal-bully
This is classic "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy by the right, and by bullies everywhere. They bully you repeatedly, and call you a wimp if you complain. When they get even a smidgen of similar treatment, they call you a bully.
Did you actually watch the exchange? Senator Franken was extremely polite and civil, to a witness who was lying about the facts in order to deny rights to gay couples. He did not deserve as good as he got.
I would expect a lot better of Minnesota Public Radio than to be in any way supportive of such a ridiculous editorial as this.
Personally, I thought that Minnery should have been sent to prison for the crime lying to congress. Merely being exposed as a hypocrite and a liar was actually very gentle and humane treatment under the circumstances.
I really don't understand why Ms. Daklin felt the need to write this article or why MPR felt the need to publish it. As others have pointed out in various ways in their comments, there is no there there. Not only was Senator Franken not rude or impolite in his questioning, but it seems that the only way he could have avoided being charged with bullying by Ms. Dalkin would be by allowing Minnery to willfully lie without questioning or challenge. Any way you dice it, Mr. Minnery is the one who behaved reprehensibly. When people do bad things, like lying in order to denigrate a certain class of people, it is expected that there will be consequences for their actions.
Minnery chose to testify before Congress, no one forced him into it. At best, he had a reckless disregard for the truth of what he was saying. At worst, he deliberately lied.
In either case, testimony before Congress should be important enough that neither of these is acceptable. I am glad that Franken did his homework and did not let the falsehoods go uncorrected.
Exposing a lie is not unkindness.
Guess Tom Minnery's lying wasn't the problem... just that Franken was a meany. Epic fail and second-rate thinking on your part Ms. Daklin.
You're a paralegal who thinks people questioning witnesses/experts should be treated "kindly"? You know this is an adversarial system, yes? I shudder to think how poorly you must prep your employers if you think the system should be kind. Amazingly idealistic of you. NOt to mention the Frankin you quote was not mean, was not rude, and far from being a bully. As I work with children, I can clearly recognize all of those behaviors.
I understand this is an editorial, but I can't fathom how more sensitive Franken could be? The senator was doing what we elect politicians to do. What is worse, is that this is attributed to MPR, on other news websites, and I really sincerely hope that the only bastion of quality journalism in the state is taking a giant step backwards by publishing this dribble.
The laughter in the room was not because Sen. Franken was cracking jokes, but because the audience recognized that Sen. Franken was about to make a point about something in the testimony he thought was incorrect. If anything, Franken was expressing exasperation because the groups like the one Mr. Minnery represents routinely misrepresent anything and everything to support their position on marriage. I think Ms. Dalkin is showing her own biased position on the issue by arguing that Sen. Franken was bullying the witness and humilating him. If anything, Sen. Franken was being quite civil compared to some of the other pointed questioning seen at Congressional hearings.
Minnery lied. He either attempted to mislead the Senate, or did not bother to read the study he was using to back up his claims. In either case Tom Minnerys conduct is simply disgraceful.
All Sen Franken did was point this out, and conclude, rightfully so, that his testimony could not be trusted.
Over all I think Sen Franken was quite civil and polite about the whole thing.
Exactly how do you think we should treat people who sit in front of the Senate and try to influence policy with lies or fabrication?
Congressional hearings are held to inform both Congress and the people. It may have been "unkind" to point out that Mr. Minnery's testemony was unfactual, but not doing so would have been a great disservice to the public Mr. Franken is paid to serve.
Is there a polite way to point out that a person is purposefully lying to Congress and trying to mislead the public? If so, why didn't you tell us about that?
Is there a polite way to tell you that you're being part of a deceit by trying to hide the fact that the person you are supporting is a liar?
What does that make you Ms. Dalking? An accessory after the fact?
It makes you a shameful shill, far worse than the very thing you pretend to be railing about. SHAME ON YOU,
Well, it appears you missed an opportunity to explain the whole story and decided to leave out the fact that Minnery was lying. Great Christian attitude you have there, Jesus would be proud!
Minnery was caught lying to congress and you are worrying about Franken missing an opportunity to be kind? ...total fail
Ms. Dalkin - You have a pretty broad definition of rude behavior. I thought Franken was direct, but in no way rude. He wasn't even trying to be funny, but somehow you read that into it as well. At any rate, congratulations. You have now become an official "tool" of the right wing. You may not have intended it, but by your shallow, naive, and incorrect reporting you have become the darling of the right. You must be proud of yourself.
Who is behind the gay bashing at Minnesota Public Radio?
http://tinyurl.com/3tgrv29
How about you worry less about civility and more about whether the witness was intentionally lying? Or do you not care that he was?
Ms. Daklin,
If you want to be treated kindly at a Congressional hearing first and foremost, do not willfully misrepresent evidence. As a church lady you you should know it's a sin to bear false witness.
Wow. This post is embarrassing. Senator Franken was serving me, his constituent, when he called out the Minnery's obvious skewing of the government report to give a false impression. In other words, lying in his testimony. If the fact that Senator Franken is smart and can, you know, read, I suggest you comment on something that doesn't take a whole lot of thought. Minnery and his ilk are un-American homophobes and that Senator Franken called them out is fantastic. Lying is their default setting. That this commentary represents MN Public Radio is truly sad and an embarrassment to the institution. Again, WOW.
Just further evidence that MPR would rather give deference to Minnery, an aged anti-gay hate monger, than pay tribute to Franken who exposed Minnery's lies.
Minnery quoted the study, and just assumed it said what he wanted it to say.
Then, Minnery used his own assumption as fact.
Tell me, what would be the proper way to correct yet another FOF bigot?
Pleezzzzz, why is this woman writing any kind of column for MPR/
Ms. Dakin, in defense of Minnery you assume that he assumed the report only documented legal marriages. You know what they say about the word assume? Don't assume- you'll make an "ass" out of "u" and "me."
Wait: Senator Franken politely corrects a man who's given incorrect testimony, and *Franken* is to blame?
Frankly, I'm worried about NPR these days. This article is clearly a slanted piece of propaganda missing any shred of fact, sadly echoing the incident a few weeks back where NPR presented ex-gay therapy as controversial rather than useless and bigoted.
Clearly anyone interested in supporting liberal causes should think twice about supporting NPR until they put an end to these odd, offensive commentaries.
Ms. Daklin, this is what I read to be your argument: give the old guy a break for his views because he has sincere beliefs. No matter that he uses them to do tangible harm to gay people, to humiliate them in the public square, to strip them of their civil rights. He's sincere, and he should be treated respectfully. Bigots are sincere. Nuts are sincere. Mean spirited people are sincere. I don't respect any of them, but you do. Don't become their apologist, Ms. Daklin. Respectfully, Tyler.
Some of them were rude but many of the comments responding to Ms. Daklin's editorial were quite civil and thoughtful, except that they disagreed with her and pointed out what they considered flaws in a rather naive commentary. So why have each and every one of these comments, civil or not, been scrubbed from this site? How "civil" is it to silence your critics entirely?
At a Senate hearing, a senator's job is not to be "nice" it is to get to the heart of the matter. Minnery misrepresented the study he quoted, Franken called him on it and clarified what the study said. That Franken did the research and knew when Minnery was lying, and said so was not at all rude. It was a man doing his job, trying to get to the truth of the matter when another man was prevaricating. Sorry. No sympathy for you on this one.
It is not mean-spirited or disrespectful to shoot down a deliberate misrepresentation of a scientific study. A man caught lying to a Congressional hearing deserves far more than the ridicule Minnery was served. His aim was to harm children and same-sex households by twisting the facts. Focus on the Family has worked hard, using dishonesty with brio and talent, to establish its reputation as a virulent opponent of gay rights. FOF's hate for its fellow citizens is anything but a "family value".
Very well written Carrie. I agree, it doesn't matter what opinion you have, it is important to be civil. It is the lower end of our human nature to belittle others of opposing viewpoints. We must all step up to the higher end of what we can achieve, and show and have respect for all and allow them their right to different viewpoints. This is what America has been and we should renew this in politics and in our communities. :)
Wow, first MPR scrubs the site of all comments (as per my comment of Aug. 18), then puts them back but in doing so my original comment now appears with the byline "sue olds from New Rockford, ND". I would be pretty pissed off if a comment I hadn't submitted was attributed to me, whether it accurately represented my views or not. How many other comments here have been screwed up in this bit of revisionary editing?
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
