Category: Letter

I was appalled to see your article on foie gras [Down the Hatch, November]. Animal activists have been working tirelessly to stop the production of foie gras because of its inhumane treatment of geese and ducks. Many states and countries have passed laws against it, and if you knew how they make foie gras, you’d know why. Ducks and geese are literally force fed to artificially enlarge their livers. A tube is forced down their throats and a mechanical pump pushes so much food into their stomachs that they frequently rupture internal organs. Broken necks are also common. To have your writer so offhandedly dismiss these concerns is very disturbing. All for a spot of pâté at some hoity-toity dinner party. You all should be ashamed.
Dave Allen
New York, NY

Excellent article on leaf blowers [“Rake Against the Machine,” November], just one of so many completely unnecessary, stupid new power tools and technologies that we can live without. Most of the dunderheads that operate them have no idea that the leaves under the shrubbery (mulch) are necessary and protective and should be left there to eventually nourish and protect the plant. You pointed out all the microns of mold and filth that pour into our air. And how much greenhouse gas is added to the planet’s already heavily polluted atmosphere? If only we could get this message to our mayor, governor, or legislators, maybe we could pass laws similar to those passed in L.A. Unfortunately health and longer life is not one of our priorities.
Don Johnson
Minneapolis

Your article about music licensing [“All Shook Down,” November] was timely and important, but I’d like to make some additional points. All business owners should be aware that playing copyrighted music without permission or a license is a violation of federal copyright law. If such a violation went to court, the violator would have a hard time not getting convicted. The area of negotiation and problems is with the way these organizations disburse the money they collect. They pay it out primarily by sampling what is played on the radio, which is controlled by a few corporations. The people who play at a coffeehouse do not sing songs that get played on these stations. So the license money paid by the coffehouse does not go to the songwriters whose songs are used. In Europe, song lists are turned in to an agency and the money goes to those whose songs are used. This could be done in the U.S., but I think American performing rights organizations are too lazy. With email and Internet, this could be easily done. Another issue is the fees they charge. They are capricious and unreasonable. I think there can be some challenges to these folks, but it has to be done correctly or they will simply take the club to court for copyright violation and burn them as an example. One other copyright issue that may be useful is that copyright is dealt with in the original Constitution. It clearly states that creations (now called “intellectual property”) may be protected by the creator for a limited amount of time. The copyright law of 1906 protected songs for seventeen years, with a renewal possible for an additional seventeen years. This was something clearly intended in our Constitution. The rewrite of 1975 extended that to the life of the composer plus seventy-five years. This was obviously intended to cover any family and estate. This was still reasonable, in my opinion, but it was pushing the envelope. Recently, however, the major corporations that own intellectual property have gotten this extended again to cover their older property. Now it covers the life of the artist life plus ninety-five years. This is the Sonny Bono Extension of the copyright act, and I think a serious argument can be made that this is unconstitutional.
I think that clubs should do what the networks did. They said, “We’ll pay you specifically for each piece we use rather than buy a blanket license.” Then the money would also be credited directly to the real composer. Also, the agents who go after clubs often lie. They will tell them they need a license to do any music live. That is false. Public domain songs can be used, original songs by the performer can be used, and songs for which the performer has permission from the writer can be used. The rest you can cover on a per-song basis, if there are any. If nothing else, this tactic may force them to offer a more reasonable blanket license.
If BMI and ASCAP were forced to actually collect royalties for the songs used, rather than using the radio survey, they might tell small clubs to forget it, or they might charge a nominal fee. A very strong case could be made that they can collect a list of these songs and that they should, since small venue music is seldom played on the stations where they do the sampling.
John R. Kolstad
president, Mill City Music
Minneapolis

It was great to see Brenda Weiler’s 400 Bar show recommended [Broken Clock, November], but her most recent album wasn’t recorded or produced in her new hometown of Portland, as the blurb states. It was recorded in Minneapolis at City Cabin by local talent Darren Jackson (Kid Dakota, Alva Star), John Hermanson (Alva Star, Storyhill), and Alex Oana (producer for Spymob, Semisonic). It’s on the album notes, I swear! Hey, it’s hard enough to get good press for local musicians—let’s not export the accolades when we don’t have to!
E. Anderson
Minneapolis

I really enjoy your magazine—except for the fact that you apparently worship the insufferably smug Al Franken as some kind of god [“Al Franken Is a Big Fat Genius,” October]. He impresses me not at all, and never has. I never thought Franken and Davis were even remotely amusing when they were on Saturday Night Live. This man has no talent whatsoever, except for being an irritant. I agree with Peter Kind of St. Paul [Letters, October], who wrote you about the childish Limbaugh-Franken feud. After Franken’s book Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations came out, some friends of Limbaugh’s wrote their rebuttal, Al Franken Is a Buck-Toothed Moron and Other Observations. While I agree with both assessments, I find this infantilism nauseous. As Kind says, neither sways my opinion. There are those of us who don’t need anyone to tell us what to think or how to live.
Jerry Westermann
Fridley

Bravo to The Rake on its series of stories on shipwrecks [“Too Deep, Too Dark, Too Cold,” November] These were very well-researched and well-put-together articles and I very much enjoyed reading them. As a result of your articles, my husband and I will be attending the Gales of November conference in Duluth next weekend and we are considering making the trip to Michigan for the Ghost Ships conference next spring as well. We have a sailboat on Lake Superior, which provides us an intimate link to her, and we always enjoy reading these stories.
Karen Brown
Andover

Stuart Greene [Sex & The Married Man, “Dancing With Myself”] has guts. Yes, we all do it. No, we never admit it. And I think his statement that sometimes sex for men is just a physical thing is true. That doesn’t mean we can’t have deep loving relationships, and we prove it all the time. As he said in a previous column, any men who claim they never “go solo” are either liars or politicians or both. Hell, let’s all pretend we never watch TV while we’re at it; it’ll make us seem smarter and more responsible than we really are. Just don’t get moralistic on me, or I’m liable to go all Kiefer Sutherland on your ass.
Nick Harding, Roanoke, VA

I just read your article on strip clubs [Sex & The Married Man, “Should Married Men Go to Strip Clubs?” August]. Strangely enough, someone posted it on our bathroom stall in my college dorm. So your friends regularly attend strip clubs. Good, wholesome fun, right? They’re not hurting anyone. I could not disagree more. One question I raise to men and women who go to strip clubs is, Did they ever think about the actual person inside of that body? I doubt it. I don’t know all the reasons why people choose to strip, but I know some. Although strippers probably say it’s good money (or “I’m so hot why wouldn’t I show off my body”), I think they are all neglecting to dig deeper for the real problem. All female strippers have low self-esteem and this is how they make themselves feel better. A backwards way of doing it, if you ask me. Because by showing off their body to these men who call out to them, fantasize about them, call them “baby,” they are objectifying themselves completely. They are losing their identity and being valued solely for their fake breasts and painted faces. And your friends, you say they are capable of healthy relationships. I disagree. If they objectify these women so often and so callously, how could they truly value their wives? And what about how their wives feel? Do you think they enjoy being compared to an unreal standard of beauty? By going to strip clubs, they are disrespecting their partners.
Jenna Sophia Hanson
Minneapolis

I have been won over by Al Franken a little bit lately because of an interview he did on Michael Medved’s conservative talk-radio show and the Rake interview [“Al Franken Is a Big Fat Genius,” October]. Nevertheless, I think the Democratic Party is a lot like the Rake’s article: confusing and broken up! It’s heartening to see that Al has taken a more moderate tone by saying that there are good people on the other side. I believe this is a new approach for Democrats, to try to be more inclusive. Within that context I’m glad there’s a Rush Limbaugh in the world to put an integrity check on Democrats. It’s ironic that Al pointed to “conservative” media in a medium that makes no bones about being liberal. I think this is because liberals honestly believe that they are objective and don’t recognize their own bias. Also, it was humorous to see Al try to spin the Wellstone memorial in the same way that Limbaugh did by taking the best-case scenario for their particular agenda. I don’t think I was alone when I was heartbroken after Wellstone’s death and was listening to MPR and got sick to my stomach by all the propaganda being propagated at that ceremony. I had to shut the damn radio off. No one can try to tell me that that was only because of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that I felt that way!
P.S. Al, I would love to listen to you on the radio when you get there!
Bradley Nesseth
Minneapolis

Your piece about the Paul Bunyan Trail [Good Intentions, October] overlooked something. Perhaps the State of Minnesota ignored the fact that railroad rights-of-way fit into many different categories ranging from outright ownership to easements for railroad use. Perhaps it wasn’t overlooked, and the decision was to take a chance. If the latter, it was bound to blow up some time. I’ve been a licensed attorney, specializing in real estate law, for fifty years. Since retirement, I’ve lectured to lawyers and surveyors on the ins and outs of the law relating to railroad rights-of-way and public streets. One element I’ve always stressed is that everything depends on how they were created. You’ve got to know the facts. The results of the state trail case have been widely quoted, but not the underlying facts. I’m waiting to read the court of Appeals decision. There is a decision relating to a similar trail in Washington County in which it was decided that the right-of-way was really for “transportation purposes.” I’m sure the state must have argued this decision, but the Court of Appeals decided that it didn’t apply. I suspect that the evidence may have shown that the right-of-way had been abandoned for some time before it was incorporated into the trail system. If so, both the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota’s Constitution require that the underlying owners must be compensated.
Charles L. Horn
Bloomington