You are simply delusional.
Your description is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened.
I had not seen that. That is just wonderful.. “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it” I think I love Barney Frank.
I replayed the video, since I just listened to it as audio before, and agree - that’s not what happened at all.
He starts by looking at the documents on his desk, looks over at the witness (Mr. Minnery) a couple of times. Might crack the barest hint of a grin at slightly before the one minute mark, but that’s hard to tell. Continues to alternate between reading the documents and look at the witness throughout.
The worst accusation I could make is that he encouraged Minnery to make statements that showed how wildly he misrepresented the study, and that he made some measured, semi-dramatic pauses in his speech in the process, which aren’t uncommon for him or many speakers. Considering the raging and raving I’ve seen on the Congressional floor - on both sides of the aisle, I will note - he’s goddamned stone-faced and calm, and you accuse him of being a comedian there? He got a chuckle out of the audience when he hoisted the guy on his own petard, and rightfully so.
I’ll moderate my earlier comment on Minnery - he might not actually be a bald-faced liar. He could also be stupid enough to make the assumption that a “nuclear family” absolutely must mean a heterosexual married couple without fully reading the report he was citing and double-checking the definitions used. In either case, he deserves getting called out on that. His ‘misinterpretation’ of the study’s results risks the health and happiness of children growing up in families that don’t fit his definition of Ideal, when research shows that DOMA is actually putting some of them at risk for these problems.
I hate to be a naysayer, but did Franken really pwn him?
Yes, the definition of “nuclear family” in the report included families with two married gay parents. But what about the sample? Given that the definition includes the word “married” there simply can’t be that many gay-parent nuclear families in the US at this point in time. Did the researchers oversample families with same-sex parents to take account of this, or did they just take a random sample of married-parent families? If the latter, it’s entirely plausible that the surveys findings are based on a sample that is heavily biased towards straight-led nuclear families. In which case it would say very little about the outcomes for kids in gay-led families, and it would be misleading to claim that it does.
I haven’t dug out the report, and the make up of the sample might well permit conclusions about the nuclear family regardless of parent’s sexual orientation. But just because the definition permitted the inclusion of gay-led families doesn’t mean that’s who the findings are based on. And by leaving that point unclear, Franken hasn’t pwned anyone.
I’m not sure it counts as a complete rhetorical bodyslam but it did at least point out that FotF were misusing the data. FotF were trying to claim that the study showed that a dual-parent same-sex household with adopted children would more resemble a single-parent home (many of which are quite poor) than a dual-parent opposite-sex household with adopted children. This claim does not remotely follow from the data, and Franken essentially pointed it out.
I mean, I’m not exactly seeing him dance around the committee room shouting “IN YOUR FACE, LOOOOOOOSERS”. He makes a valid point that undermines FotF’s argument, then asks why further similar misrepresentations should not be assumed. That’s it.
And I still keep expecting Franken to start imitating Paul Simon for some reason ("…and that’s why I wear…the bow tie…").
This was my interpretation as well - the comment about not being able to take anything else in the FotF’s statement at its face value was what struck home for me.
Ya left out the most important part; with a B.A. in political science.
CMC fnord!
Just as a reminder,
On the other hand, was the study broad enough to include a meaningful number of non-married same-sex couples? If it doesn’t, then the study doesn’t say jack at all about same-sex parenting one way or another, so the pwnage is still valid if not as awesome.
Your second line is fine, mhendo; your first line is getting pretty much a personal insult. Please don’t do this, esp. in MPSIMS.
No warning issued.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Oh, and “bio-contemptible nonsense”, don’t forget that!
I guess he saw a different video because no, I don’t see any pause for laughter or camera-chasing either.
I agree that the report probably doesn’t have statistical validity for married same sex couples. But, given the definition of nuclear family in that report, it does not say that gay marriage is bad, and implies that it may be beneficial.
It seems to imply other things as well. Cohabitation between hetero couples is bad for kids. When you remarry, your spouse should adopt your kids. Divorce is bad. What it does not imply is that gay marriage is bad, the one thing Mr. Minery is saying it does say.
This. Well, all but the Klobuchar part. As County Attorney she sucked.
Yeah, I hate it when politicians have a practiced stage presence. Give me a good old Republican who is unpracticed in the art of entertainment. Like Jesse Ventura, Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Shirley Temple, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger…
I was thinking the same thing - not necessarily Republicans - but we’ve elected plenty of people before who have made their living in comedy. Fred Thompson is another one you missed.
(Nitpick Ventura is an independent. Eastwood has been independent since Watergate. Both seem to lean sort of Libertarian - Ventura certainly does - liberal on social issues, conservative fiscally).
I am grateful that Franken (or, more likely, his staff) took the time to check the guy’s work. If your work is dense enough, and your readership isn’t familiar with the body of literature about your topic, you can get away with a lot of misrepresentation. It’s a win when someone gets called on it, and since the SDMB has traditionally been about fighting ignorance and B.S with truth, facts, and citations, this should be considered a good thing whether you like Al Franken or not.
I believe that was “vile contemptible nonsense.”
Yes, of course. My point is that politicians are often more show than know. They talk a big game. That’s how they get elected.
It must be his accent. Anyway, I thought it was a gentle way of calling it “bullshit”. Me, I am going to start calling BS “bio-comtemptible nonsense”.
Yes. I was expecting some hard-core pwnage, and was ready to speak aloud with him when reading the defitinition of “nuclear family,” but was let down and emitted a disappointed “Oh.” The definition given does, largely, exclude same-sex couples just by limiting them to being married. Franken’s right that there’s nothing in the study that claims opposite-sex couples are inherently more beneficial to childrens’ well-being than same-sex couples, but it’s no zomg major pwnage like I was expecting (and wanted).
This is bizarre. That underlined portion directly contradicts the contentions of the Focus on the Family witness. It disconnects one of FoF major supporting documents from their position, leaving their argument largely in a shambles.
How is that not “major pwnage”? What would major pwnage look like, exactly? More ridicule? The point is made, the witness is discredited and embarrassed: what more is there to do?