WTF: Garrison Keillor

[AnnInLa]

From Keillor's post at Salon:

I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them…. Back in the day, that was the standard arrangement. Everyone had a yard, a garage, a female mom, a male dad, and a refrigerator with leftover boiled potatoes in plastic dishes with snap-on lids….

Under the old monogamous system, we didn’t have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents—Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck—and need a program to keep track of the actors.

"And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife’s first husband’s second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin’s in-laws and Bruce’s ex, Mark, and Mark’s current partner, and I suppose we’ll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men—sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That’s for the kids. It’s their show."


Then, from Dan Savage:

Keillor has been married THREE TIMES. He has children from two of his marriages, children who presumably need a computer program to keep track of their step-siblings, half-siblings, and sprawling extended families, children that have to be “apportioned out on Thanksgiving and Christmas.” Okay, fine, whatever. Keillor can recognize marriage, life-long commitment, and less complicated family structures as the ideal, even if he himself has failed—failed spectacularly—to live up to that ideal himself. It might have been nice, however, if the withered old hypocrite had admitted to Salon readers that he has failed to live up to the ideals he’s espousing. How about a little full disclosure, Garrison?

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor

[babylonsister]

1. I'm thinking Keillor's really going to regret writing that. nt

[xchrom]

5. i'm HOPING keilor was doing something other than

what's seemingly obvious.

i'm HOPING he's calling some folks out of the wood work -- but we'll see if there is more clarification.

i like keilor -- i would hate to think these are his true feelings.

[ieoeja]

10. You would hate to think he feels people "will get used to" gay marriage? n/t

[wicket]

14. Same here

Just bizarre.

[BoneDaddy]

2. I think it is funny that people can read the same thing and

come up with different judgements about it.

I don't get the "judgement" about the gay community in that piece. I see it mostly as observations of how "family" has changed and how stereotypes may need to change and adapt as well.

If someone can point out a negative judgement he made I would be willing to look at it.

[FourScore]

15. I'm with you, BoneDaddy! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

29. Garrison Keillor is a very complex persona. If you've enjoyed

his "Prairie Home Companion" hosting and/or his iPod "Writer's Almanac" five minute spots, his DEPTH of communication comes through.

I honestly don't believe that he meant any malice by his observations. He's a storyteller where being picturesque in verse is prised more than the actual commentary.

I've listen and enjoyed his shows for years and have not ever received any inclination of Keillor embracing any element of bigotry ... much of the times tolerance and respect for others is what shines through.

Perhaps he was trying to be witty and was not careful in how some strict interpretations may derrive from a multilevel perspective type narrative. :shrug:

We all have our less than stellar moments, but IMO, he's a far cry from a hypocrite.

Yes, I admire him. :-)

[BoneDaddy]

32. I tend to agree

I didn't see malice at all in it. I thought he was trying to be satirical and witty, but as for taking real offense to it, you would have to be very very sensitive to have interpreted that.

The funny thing is he talked about the stereotype of the two gay men with the little dog and I started laughing cause my brother in law and his partner (two big bears)with their shit-zu fit the stereotype exactly.

[peacetalksforall]

3. I don't have Salon - where did his writing lead - are you sure

we're getting his point with what you excerpted? What is excerpted sounds potentially anti-gay - he's smarter than that, I believe.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Here's the link, and I agree that Keillor is seldom judgmental.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/14/keillor/

If anything, Keillor was simply commenting on the changing world. I don't think anyone has to remind him that he's been married three times or that he is as much a part of the changed world as anyone.

(Why do I get the impression that some people are always looking for a problem?)

[EFerrari]

4. "Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck"

He's being silly, not critical.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. That was my take on it. ....n/t

[Maven]

34. That was a comment on the "unfortunate" proliferation of familial complexity

that has arisen (according to Keillor) from serial monogamy.

It wasn't satire on the "traditional" family, but it was playful enough not to be genuinely critical.

[EFerrari]

36. Yes! And notice, he imagines a time when gay marriage will be

something we are all used to, i.e., take for granted. :)

[ieoeja]

6. Where does Keillor say life-long commitment and less complicated structure is the ideal?

He says life-long commitments and simpler structers used to be the norm.

He says this is no longer true.

He says gay marriage will add even more complication to the family structure.

The only place where he passes any judgement on all of this is where he says, "I suppose we’ll get used to it." The only people this would seem to criticize are those who say gay marriage will destroy the family. No, it will not. For as Keillor says, we will "get used to it".


He also suggests these parents will not fit the queer stereotype. But I am limiting this post to the specific accusation Dan Savage (not the OP) explicitly makes in the original post.

[zulchzulu]

8. If you know Keillor, it's this thing called "humor"

He pokes fun at Lutherans, liberals, conservatives, cowboys, himself and all matter of civilization and there isn't a freakin' problemo.

His description (in the light of Lake Wobegonesque animatery) of "sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments" is meant to be funny. It's not hateful and it's not meant to be hateful...unless you cherry-pick it out and throw an attention-seeking agenda in for the hell of it...or as Keillor would say, for the halibut.

As for Dan Savage, he has a severe problem with humor recognition techniques. Must we always be having a pity party while handing out "I Am A Victim" cards to everyone?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Methinks that Dan Savage needs to look up "irony", "satire" and "humor".

[bobbie]

11. WTF indeed

That doesn't sound like Keillor. He's typically not a mean spirited guy.

[rebel with a cause]

40. for one thing the op seems to be edited from Kellor's original column.

If there is a meaning to the original piece by Kellor, what I get from it is that all adults need to get their acts together where it is not all about them but that the children can get some of the attention. He may be saying that children are so caught up and overshadowed by their parents lives/changing lives that they have no time to become aware of who they are, or to grow into the person they were meant to be. I agree, parents often become so consumed by their own lives and its complexity that they do not give their children the attention that they need to have complexities of their own. Children often become the parent while the adult enjoys their never ending adolescence, and this is not about gay parents, it is about all types of parents. JMHO

[bobbie]

45. That sounds like a reasonable interpretation

And I'll give Keillor the benefit of the doubt. He's a pretty solid and principled guy.

[meegbear]

12. Is that douchebag Dan Savage still around?

Say "YES" to War on Iraq
Liberals Against Liberation

"No to War! No to Oppression!"

The above anti-war message was delivered to me via a sad-looking pink poster. I pulled the poster off a light pole and hung it in my office over my desk. I look at the poster every day when I sit down to work, and every day I wonder how and when the American left lost its moral compass.

You see, lefties, there are times when saying "no" to war means saying "yes" to oppression. Don't believe me? Go ask a Czech or a European Jew about the British and French saying "no" to war with Germany in 1938. War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be replaced by another Baathist dictator--and what then for the people of Iraq? More "peace"--i.e., more oppression, more executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear.

While the American left is content to see an Iraqi dictator terrorizing the Iraqi people, the Bushies in D.C. are not. "We do not intend to put American lives at risk to replace one dictator with another," Dick Cheney recently told reporters. For those of you who were too busy making papier-mâché puppets of George W. Bush last week to read the papers, you may have missed this page-one statement in last Friday's New York Times: "The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein."

These developments--a Republican administration recognizing that support for dictators in Third World countries is a losing proposition; a commitment to post-WWII-style nation-building in Iraq--are terrific news for people who care about human rights, freedom, and democracy. They also represent an enormous moral victory for the American left, which has long argued that our support for "friendly" dictators around the world was immoral. (Saddam used to be one of those "friendly" dictators.) After 9/11, the left argued that our support for brutal dictatorships in the Middle East helped create anti-American hatred. Apparently the Bush administration now agrees--so why isn't the American left claiming this victory?

Because claiming this victory means backing this war, and the American left refuses to back this or any war--which makes the left completely irrelevant in any conversation about the advisability or necessity of a particular war. (Pacifism is faith, not politics.) What's worse, the left argues that our past support for regimes like Saddam's prevents us from doing anything about Saddam now. We supported (and in some cases installed) tyrants, who in turn created despair, which in turn created terrorists, who came over here and blew shit up... so now what do we do? According to the left, we do nothing. It's all our fault, so we're just going to have to sit back and wait for New York City or D.C. or a big port city (like, say, Seattle or Portland) to disappear.

It seems to me that if supporting tyrants creates terrorists, withdrawing our support from those very same tyrants might help to "uncreate" terrorists. Removing the tyrants from power seems an even better way to uncreate terrorists.

But wait! Taking out Saddam means dropping bombs, and dropping bombs only creates more terrorists!

That's the lefty argument du jour, and a lot of squish-brains are falling for it, but it's not an argument that the historical record supports. The United States dropped a hell of a lot of bombs on Serbia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, and Italy. If dropping bombs creates terrorists, where are all the German terrorists? Or the Italian terrorists? Or the Vietnamese terrorists?

But wait! Iraq isn't in cahoots with al Qaeda, so why attack Iraq in the war on terrorism?

Because we're not just at war with al Qaeda, stupid. We're at war with a large and growing Islamo-fascist movement that draws its troops and funds from all over the Islamic world. Islamo-fascism is a regional problem, not just an al Qaeda problem or an Afghanistan problem. To stop Islamo-fascism, we're going to have to roll back all of the tyrannous and dictatorial regimes in the Middle East while simultaneously waging war against a militant, deadly religious ideology. To be completely honest, I would actually prefer that the United States go to war against the ridiculous royal family in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been using American money to export their intolerant and deadly strain of Islam all over the world (the kind of Islam that inspires people to blow up discos in Bali), and getting rid of the Saudi royal family and their fascist clerics makes more sense than getting rid of Saddam. But the Saudis are our "allies," so perhaps we can pressure them to reform, as Josh Feit suggests.

In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we're going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.

Post-9/11, post-Bali, what other choice do we have?

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=12237

[EstimatedProphet]

48. Man, there's a whole field of strawmen in that article

[Fenris]

50. LOL. You've clearly never read Dan Savage's political writings before.

To say they are choked by the sheer number of strawmen would be an understatement. ;)

[EstimatedProphet]

51. Nope, this was my first exposure to his brand of schizophrenia

[mainegreen]

16. Looks like the point of the piece is that society needs to remember the children.

Nowhere does he say gay people should not have children. Agreed he has over-generalizations that are offense to some, but then, that's his humor style. If anyone listens to him long enough, they're going to be offended. Nothing new there. Of course I personally think he's one of the un-funniest bastards on public radio, slightly behind car talk.

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Read the Keillor piece. And relax.

Essentially he's saying "The Kids are Alright."

It's us fogies who have to deal with change.

I'll leave it to others to determine if his attempts at humor wound up being a tad insensitive, but it didn't come off that way to me at all.

[bigtree]

18. He's making fun, but he understands and loves people

It reminded me of our family reunions, trying to get my gay brother-in-law to my relatives house and clean him up for the less-worldly elders who rarely traveled beyond their chocolate and vanilla town . . .

We all had to clean up before going . . . me, wondering how to hide all of my hair and looking for a pair of pants without a hole in the knee and a decent pair of shoes; trying to keep Greg from spiking his hair into a volcano . . .

We ALL took some 'getting used to'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Keillor is a great satirist

And like all satirists, has a deep, unspoken love of humanity. Keillor's no homophobe.

Savage is totally taking everything out of context, he's making himself out the fool.

[DeSwiss]

20. Having listened to Garrison Keillor....

....for lo these many years, my first inclination after reading the article in Salon is to give him the benefit of the doubt as regards its intent. Tongue-in-cheek is generally how I read it. On the other hand, in the article, he makes another comment:

"Nature is about continuation of the species -- in other words, children. Nature does not care about the emotional well-being of older people."

With this I disagree. Nature isn't about the continuation of the species. That implies volition and intent. Over the millennia, countless species have come and gone with nature standing there as witness to its inception and demise. And the only thing that remains more or less the same in all this is..... nature. To say that nature doesn't "care" implies one believes that nature has "feelings." It also separates us from nature when in fact we are a part of it.

And more to the point -- as we've all seen countless times by now, nature has no problems with gayness, as is evident from the homosexual behavior found in so many species. So if nature was all about the continuation of the species, then how does Mr. Keillor explain this behavior? Such behavior (see- studies of sexual behavior of penguins and koala bears) cannot, in and of itself, lead to the production of children. But it most certainly supports the continuation of their particular species. And the penguins and koala bears don't seem to mind or have problems figuring out who is who. Maybe the problem is with the deficiencies in the family social structure he is bemoaning has changed. But the family structure has always changed. Fathers had numerous wives, mothers used to be "purchased" by their husbands, and children were the property of their fathers. That's changed and I don't see him complaining about that.

If I were grading, this article by Garrison would receive a "D." And he'd get that from mostly for his use of punctuation.

[Matariki]

23. You could as easily interpret that as meaning

"Nature's agenda is the propagation of species, Nature doesn't 'care' how it gets done or who raises the offspring".

[Buzz Clik]

27. Nature isn't about continuation of the species?

Nature doesn't have to have volition or intent to be about continuation of the species. When a species is no longer propagating -- for whatever reason -- the result is predictable and undeniable.

I cannot see taking issue with this comment.

[DeSwiss]

37. I suppose it all comes down to how one defines "nature."

And to conversely expand on your point: "When a species over-propagates, those result are also predictable and undeniable -- eventual extinction from overpopulation and the accompanying diminished resources that formerly supported that species."

So if nautre does indeed have a purpose with regard to homoseuxuality, then maybe it's nature's way of putting a "brake" on over-propagation and to maintain a balance within it. While still maintaining the gene pool for propagation when needed.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Hold it!

Let's not extrapolate. I never said, "so if nautre does indeed have a purpose with regard to homoseuxuality", nor did I imply it.

And, I agree about overpopulation.

[rebel with a cause]

42. I did not connect his comment about nature having to do with children

to gay marriage at all. He was talking about the care of the children. About people being less involved with themselves and more involved with their children's lives. If we do not care about how our children grow up, or how we nurture them, then the results are often disastrous. If you have watched people get into one relationship after another, and children being moved from one family structure to another, you have probably seen children who felt a bit confused and even neglected. And children who have parents that dress and act as young as they do, often feels overshadowed by that parent (and embarrassed by them). I have known girls who's mothers wore clothes that were for teenagers, except they may have been more seductive than what I like to see them in. These girls usually had problems due to the competition their mother posed for them, and the friend instead of mother relationship that they had.

[peacetalksforall]

28. Nature History Religion Science - we can't get it together in this

country.

Those two sentences are disappointing.

[GoneOffShore]

44. Have you read The Selfish Gene

By Richard Dawkins?

From the book jacket.

"Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines. The world of the selfish gene is one of savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit. But what of the acts of apparent altruism found in nature - the bees who commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, or the birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk ? Do they contravene the fundamental law of gene selfishness ? By no means: Dawkins shows that the selfish gene is also the subtle gene. And he holds out the hope that our species - alone on earth - has the power to rebel against the designs of the selfish gene."

Written in 1989 it was Dawkin's first book. Pretty much puts pay to "Nature isn't about the continuation of the species."

[kestrel91316]

21. I don't see any RW-leaning judgementalism here at all. I think it's

just his typical offbeat take on things.

He has a wry sense of humor.

He's also quite liberal, in a Minnesota Scandahoovian sort of way.

[Sal Minella]

24. He also has a DEADLINE once a week, and coming up with fresh, earth-shakingly original columns

week after week is a challenge I'm perfectly willing to leave to him (or anyone else) rather than take on myself.

[deutsey]

31. He caused a lot of controversy with his comments on Bush

stealing the 2000 election, if I remember correctly.

[Matariki]

22. If you saw Dan Savage on the Colbert Report

you'd know he seems to be missing a humor gene or two. He honestly didn't seem to *get* Colbert's irony and got caught up in the charade. I haven't read the whole Keillor Salon article, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit it Savage jumped on the Angry Train without really getting what Keillor was saying - i.e. simply making the observation that families are changing without making a moral judgment about it.

[Bunny]

25. Here's a Lounge thread from last night.

This is most assuredly satire - Keillor's a master.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6305050

[ComerPerro]

26. I have to agree with most of the people in this thread. I think Keillor was misunderstood here

Especially this passage:

Under the old monogamous system, we didn’t have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents—Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck—and need a program to keep track of the actors.


I think his message is more like "Traditional family? What traditional family?"

[sandnsea]

39. Of course it is

And he's actually criticizing couples that stay together in misery, like old boiled potatoes laying cold in the refrigerator.

Geez louise. It's obvious to me. Are people so bored that they actually have to go out of their way to pick on Garrison Keillor of all people??

[deutsey]

30. "we’ll get used to it"

That seems to be the heart of what Keillor is saying (at least based on this excerpt)...anyone who knows his humor knows he usually doesn't club you over the head with a MESSAGE. He usually subtly weaves that into what appears to be a humorous narrative that's ostensibly about something else.

[Maven]

33. Ah, the good old days.

When "good" women were housekeepers and vessels for their man's progeny. Love, honor, and obey, till death do us part. :puke:

Treacly faux-nostalgia. Seasoned with a ludicrous, technicolor stereotype of gay men--admittedly, identified as such--but used to rhetorical advantage nonetheless. How disappointing.

Keillor's overriding point--that parents aren't supposed to be the focus, children are--might have been delivered with a little less wistful remembrance and a little more of the sharp wit we've come to expect.

I think Dan Savage's reaction is misplaced. But I also think the article could have been written better.

[EFerrari]

38. But, that's part of his point There never was a time when "good women"

really were housekeepers. Women have always had to work but the social fiction was that they didn't. Same with the deployment of "flamboyance". He's poking fun at stereotypes.

[Zookeeper]

35. Up here in Minnesota....

Keillor has a weekly column, which takes a dig at BushCo just about every week. Dan Savage is playing hitman, because Keillor criticizes the Rethugs with a down-to-earth, midwestern voice.

Keillor is not anti-gay and I don't think he is an advocate for returning to some nostalgic ideal. He is simply pointing out the changes in society. Frequently, though, he does advocate for adults to act more adult and less self-indulgent and childish. He has an 8 year old child, so I imagine that is a subject close to his heart.

I'm familiar with his neighborhood. I met a boy who went to the very expensive private school in that neighborhood. He told me that he was one of a few kids in his grade who lived with both of his still married parents. Two years later, his parents divorced, too. Keillor is reflecting the current norm on his block.

[AnnInLa]

43. At Americablog, John Aravosis, who is gay objects

to the characterization of gays as flamboyant, and the affrontry of Garrison lecturing them to "cut it out."

[EFerrari]

46. Then John needs to get a reading coach because Garrison

poked at stereotypes all across the spectrum of sexual practice.

[GoneOffShore]

47. Old news - The Lounge Lizards talked this over YESTERDAY

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6305050

While I'm usually pretty much on board with Savage re: Santorum and BushCo, he certainly missed the point of this (as well as his support for the Iraq War - must have been a bad day with the tequila).

Keillor is poking fun at himself as well as anyone else who has that extended family caused by divorce. And he's also pointing out how parents, any parents, by the very fact of they're being parents can and do embarrass their kids. Kids of course, don't realize that it's in the job description.

It's satire folks. Put away the damn pitchforks. Garrison is one of us.

[vanlassie]

49. Keillor called Bush: "Shit For Brains" a couple years ago.

That puts him on top of my hero list, thank you very much.

[noel711]

52. Keillor opposed to untraditional pairing...?

In last night's monologue ("News from Lake Woebegon"), he told a story about an oppossum that fell in love with a cat. And gradually she returned his affection. The cat's owners were a tad uncomfortable with this, and tried to do away with aforesaid 'possom. But love won out.
He actually called it a 'love story,' and the audience applauded. The thought of a cat/possum pairing made me queasy, but what do I know? He was very sweet in telling the story, and there were no sexual overtones. If we were a strict traditionalist, this wouldn't have gone on the air. So... what does the story reveal about his view?