No, you cannot get more self-absorbed than Al Franken. It is impossible. Well, off to work.

As a member of a family of devout Southern Baptists, and as reader of Al Franken, and as a generally agreeable sort, I have some criticism to offer. Primarily, I would suggest that you really don't understand the perspective Franken is coming from, what points he is trying to get out, or what audience he is appealing to. Frankly - although you recognize that he is writing satire - you don't seem to "get" it.

First, the joke about "lying to God-fearing people" is probably the least offensive thing he says in his book. If you make it past the first few pages of the book, then you are likely already horrified by his blasphemous sense of humor, or you don't get offended by blasphemy. Franken is not trying to communicate with people who are offended by blasphemy: he's announcing surrender from the outset. He knows that the sensibilities of some Christians will not allow the same sense of humor about God as his own sensibilities do. He knows that it will be others who can communicate to this group of the Devout.

On his spiritual side -- its clear that the man doesn't subscribe to an overarching supernatural world-view, and that he doesn't wish to argue the value of his viewpoint or its ethical reprocussions. Asked about his spirituality, he stumblingly describes what one remarkable Jewish man has termed a "still small voice." Call it arrogance if you will. Some, no doubt, would call it arrogant to believe that your own religion's foundational texts are the words of God Himself, or that the human founders of your religion speak for Him. Perhaps they are wrong. And perhaps it is wrong to view a person as arrogant who can find no better approach than to ask themselves tough moral questions, knowing that they will never be able to find the perfect answer, but knowing they are obliged to try to answer the best way possible, nonetheless.

In Franken's book, he is very self-denigrating where it concerns his own understanding of Christian doctrine -- but this is a kind of satire in itself. I bet that he understands Christian Doctrine much better than he claims to, and I expect that he holds a very dim view of it. Instead of attacking Christianity generally, or evangelical Christianity specifically - as some less temperate speakers might do - he ribs the Religious Conservatives of the world for taking themselves and their eschatology so deadly seriously. When a Religious Conservative gets up in arms, huffing and puffing that Franken is criticizing something he doesn't understand - he winks at his target audience, shuffles his feet demurely, and says, "well, like I said, I'm no expert on their doctrines." He understand conservative theology - he just chooses a charicature of it to pick on when he plays his jokes. The over-the-top hyperbole ("they want the Jews to burn in Hell as soon as possible") is the literary wink that says he is drawing a political cartoon, not a portrait.

But here's the real dig -- and this is where some on the Right miss the joke, and miss the point entirely. Franken's point *isn't* to "attack Christianity and its Author." His point is political and nothing but political. He believes that he is defending the left wing (and some of the moderate wing) of American politics from what he perceives as a systematic attack, dirty politics included, coming from a recently radicalized right. Right or wrong, that is what he's about.

He may not realize how many gentle, well-meaning conservative religious people will be turned off by the digs he takes at the radical political elements in their midst. On the other hand, he may know, and feel he doesn't owe them an apology for what he may view as overly thin skin on their part.

Franken is wrong to be insensitive to the religious views of the majority of religious conservatives who are not responsible for the objectional political machinations he takes issue with. On the other hand, these religious conservatives would do themselves a favor to respond to his pokes in with a not-to-serious, but biting, sarcastic, and humorous rejoinder. They should show Franken and his audience that they are capable of understanding the nature and perspective of Franken's brand of political satire, and capable of responding without getting over-heated.

Maybe a suitable response from the offended would be to suggest that Franken took residence, during the years of 1984-1988, up the collective rectum of the anti-missionary movement.

And maybe - just maybe - the offense you feel reading Franken's satire will prompt you to empathize with people of his race who are rubbed the wrong way by Christians who say that Jewish converts are "completed" Jews.

And, maybe, someone who is more in touch with religious conservatism will one day take a stab at defending political liberalism to the conservative religious community in a way that compels.

One other thing:

You make an excellent point about Franken glossing over the seriousness of Clinton's misdeeds in the Lewinsky affair. I noticed the same thing when I read his book, and have noticed it several times when I have tried to make a similar point about the difference between Clinton's inexcusable ethical lapses and subsequent lies about them, and what we are criticizing in the Bush administration. The point is a valid one, if you have become convinced (as I have) that the Bush administration used exaggeration and faulty intelligence reports to mislead the American people (and the world) in order to gain support for a war that was the objective of many in the Bush White House for reasons not disclosed to the public before Bush even came to Office. Still, it is important that we are careful not to excuse Clinton lightly, or to gloss over his misdeeds in our rush to make that point.

Mr. Franken should consider himself lucky to have such a loyal and eloquent advocate!

Actually, I tried to respond to him in a spirit of satire that he would (or should) appreciate. I get a kick out of him, but probably for reasons that he would not appreciate.

Here is another great article about Franken's book.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091003.asp

As a junior Politico myself, I often attempt to use satire and humor to make my point to my audience. I have no problem with his use of humor to get his point across. Where I do have a problem, is his message itself and his subsequent smearing of good and honorable people to do it. I use (and encourage others to use) ad hominem attacks a great deal in my public speaking. The difference between me and Franken is that I attack individuals, not groups. I do not make generalized comments about groups (aka "gay agenda"). Franken likes to lump people together and then attack. Look at his attack on the NRA and gun owners in "Bowling for Columbine". Not only does he grossly distort the truth (translation: he lies), but he makes absurd allusions to a whole class of people. When I use humor in public speaking or writing, I try to attack individual people (Bill or Hillary Clinton, Franken, Dean, Gephart, etc.) I also stay away from attacking the innocents (Chelsea C, The Gore kids, etc.) Franken plays dirty pool and lies to make his point. You can call it satire, but it stops being satire when it is presented as fact.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Franken also saw no problem using Harvard letterhead to can the Attorney General of the US into giving personal details of his sex life to Franken. He lied to the AG. Yet he, and others of his ilk, attack the administration for doing what they believed was in the national best interest, using information they had at the time, that still may hold up to be true. I have to go, but i would like to go on.

Hi there, Chairman. I believe it was Michael Moore, not Al Franken, who created Bowling for Columbine.

see I just got really upset and confused my lefties!! You are absolutely right and I apologize.

you two guys ("Franken's Advociate" and "The Chairman" [last time I heard chairman used with "the" that was was in reference to communist dictators but I am sure there is not relation here]) are only hampered by the fact that even in his absense Al Frankin is the smartest person named on this page. The fact that you write here (or even that I write here) does not surpass the fact that none of us are in print, or have anyting touching Harvard associated with our names. Wonder why

Well, Mr. Joe Observer, it would seem that you believe that, due to Mr. Franken's Harvard degree, it is impossible for us non-Harvard educated mortals to validly critique his work. I am reminded of a saying my Dad taught me years ago: "A college degree is like a pig's tail--its only value lies in what it is attached to."

It would also behoove the person criticizing our intelligence to spell Mr Franken's name correctly! Just a thought!

and.... just because a person has a "prestigous" college name attached to his/her name, does not mean that they are smarter or better than anyone else. I have met people working farms in Iowa or at factories in Michigan who are smarter than many Harvard graduates. You also need to realize that a degree does not make you smart. Jimmy Carter was a rocket Scientist, but can anyone say that he left America better than he found it. Ronald Reagan graduated from a small mid-western college with a "C" average and;
1. Ended the Cold War
2. Brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union
3. Restored America's pride in itself
4. Helped keep Communist regimes out of Central America

Who would you choose?

and... I am the duly elected Chairman of the Blue Frog Society for the Honorably and Otherwise Under and UnEmployed. No Communism there!!