Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Dan Savage has a scathing post responding to Garrison Keillor's bizarre, rambling, mostly stupid essay at Salon.com. The Keiller piece really has to be read to be believed. Savage quotes this part from it:
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 responds:
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...Oh, tell me more about the old monogamous system, Uncle Garrison, you old serial adulterer you.
Harsh, but entirely deserved. He also points out this stunningly idiotic statement:
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.
How interesting. Yes, there certainly are gay men who fit these silly stereotypes, but far less than Keillor almost certainly believes. I don't suppose Keillor would dream of slamming all straight men based on those who fit the stereotype of the semi-literate dumbass in a wife-beater t-shirt, would he? He certainly would not expect to be judged as a straight man by the idiots on Cops, so why should all gay men by judged on the basis of Carson Cressley or RuPaul?
I'm afraid we don't be getting an answer to that question from Keillor; he's too busy telling stupid stories about past realities that never really existed. The mantra in Keillor's world is "even the nostalgia was better in the old days." I'll let Savage have the last word:
What an asshole. Asshole, asshole, asshole. What Keillor wrote today on Salon is every bit as offensive as Ann Coulter's "faggot" joke about John Edwards and relies on the same set of cultural prejudices.I know a lot of gay couples with children--some of which, as I type these words, are losing their health insurance in Michigan because of an anti-gay marriage amendment passed in that state by hateful motherfuckers who, like Keillor, hate, fear and know nothing about gay couples. None of the gay couples with kids I know go in for chartreuse pants and polka-dot shirts or striped (?) sofas.
Most of the gay male parents I know adopted children that men and women in "opposite-sex marriages" weren't interested in--children with HIV, older children, mixed-race children, children with developmental disabilities, children abused, neglected and abandoned by their heterosexual parents. Every year I go to Michigan for Gay Family Week in Saugatuck and I'm staggered by the love, patience, and compassion demonstrated by these men. These couples deserve our gratitude and support. What they don't deserve is a rich, old hypocrite insinuating that they're more interested in their fussy hairdos and over-decorated apartments than they are in raising their kids.
And Garrison? Ultimately gay parents aren't interested in being "accepted as couples and daddies" by withered old adulterers. We exist irrespective of your "acceptance." And if I seem angry, you fucking motherfucker, it's because I am. Angered and shocked. I'm used to being attacked by right-wingers obsessed with gay sex and fixated on anti-gay stereotypes. It's a new and different sensation to be attacked so crudely by a man of the left--particularly when that man's fat ass squats in a large glass house.
Comments
I'm hetero and I have a striped sofa. Does that make me gay or maybe bi-curious?
Posted by: TomMil | March 15, 2007 10:07 AM
Oh man, I actually like(d) Garrison Keillor. I had to double check to make sure this was the same person, and unfortunately it is. A damn shame.
Posted by: frank | March 15, 2007 10:11 AM
And I have a small weird dog! (And a few large, not very weird ones.) And my hair is kinda fussy too... man, is my wife going to be so bummed...
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 15, 2007 10:11 AM
Some respondents on Salon seem to think that Keillor was being satirical. Is he? It's hard to tell...this piece is just so weird. And what, exactly, about being "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" disqualifies people from being good parents?
Posted by: Gretchen | March 15, 2007 10:13 AM
"And what, exactly, about being "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" disqualifies people from being good parents?"
Except for the "fellow" part of this, the person who best fits this description is probably Paris Hilton. Who, now I think about it, shouldn't be allowed custody of the dog, let alone a child.
In fact, I know quite a few women who fit the description a whole lot better than the majority of the gay folks I know ;^) And some of them might even make pretty decent parents.
Not Paris, though.
Lynn
Posted by: Lynn | March 15, 2007 10:57 AM
I'm not sure what it is about the piece that set Savage off. Keillor doesn't express any particular opinion about any of the changes, he merely notes them. All he is doing is trying to set up a vignette of 1950s black and white tv culture vs the technicolor reality of today's reality.
I'm not really a fan of GK or PHC, but I don't see why this weird little article would change how i feel about him.
And why is Salon getting a pass on publishing the piece if it is so terrible?
Posted by: kehrsam | March 15, 2007 11:46 AM
While I agree with the anger and frustration felt against anti-gay rhetoric, Dan Savage's post is nothing but a long string of logical fallacies and irrelevancies. Ad hominem, appeal to consequences, guilt by association, appeal to emotion--you can just go through the article paragraph by paragraph and make a list of the fallacies.
I understand the sentiment, but Savage has written one terrible counter-argument.
Not that Garrison Keillor's original argument is any better. This tired old "Evolution justifies my anti-homosexual bigotry" argument just gets worse every time someone uses it. The "continuation of the species" can move along just fine with homosexuals present and equally accepted in our society. Nothing in the theory of evolution implies that we should be discriminating against homosexuals.
Posted by: Wes | March 15, 2007 11:52 AM
kersham-- If you can't figure out why it makes Savage angry, try this: "If black people want to be accepted as couples and parents, however, their attitude may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not eat watermelon and have afros. That's for the kids. It's their show."
Not to mention, this:
...assumes that children of gay parents will have more confusing relatives-- or just more relatives, neither one makes sense-- than children of straight children, and that straight parents somehow don't have exes or relatives with partners. Not to mention that gay parents are for some reason more prone to hyphenating their last names than straight parents.
At least, I think that's what he's saying. It's borderline incoherent.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 15, 2007 12:06 PM
Yawn!!!In the case of Savage,I guess he forgot he changed from"Weiner"!!!And with the exeception of getting his son Bar Mitzhvahed,he hardly has anything to do with his Religion unless it's to slam Dustin Hoffman;Barbara Streisand;Wolf Blitzer and other members of the Hebrew Faith who don't think like him!!!
Plus,he's been married once before and I beleive he secretly had a Gay affair once!!
Now Garrison Keillor is probably the most boring man on Earth!!He goes on and on with his boring sagas about life in Lake Woebegon,Minnesota;which never existed and sounds like more like"Leave It To Beaver"which never existed either!!!
Personally,I wish someone would grab them by their shirt collars and knock some sense into them!!!
Posted by: ShanghaiJohnnyP | March 15, 2007 12:06 PM
ShanghaiJohnnyP, you're thinking of Michael Savage, not Dan Savage. Michael Savage is a right-wing homophobic blowhard, and Dan Savage is a left-wing homosexual gay rights blowhard (though I happen to agree with him on a lot). I would think the difference would've been clear by what Dan Savage is quoted as saying here, but apparently not. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | March 15, 2007 12:11 PM
This article reminds me of a theater I used to spend some time in that was frequented by ladies in their 70's and 80's that raised their families in the supposed 'ideal' time of lasting marriage(which of course is a farce). Almost to a woman, and we're talking alot of women here, they said they would have left their husbands years ago if they could have supported themselves. To say it was eye opening is an understatement.
In anitquity marriages where started young and ended early often by death. We live longer and marry later today and women are not chained in bondage due to finances. I think this system is better. Both seem to have the potential for happiness and failure.
I don't care if the man has been married 7 times if he is earnestly trying to be a good husband to number 7.To use this false idea of how life was to prevent homosexuals from marrying doesn't seem very appropriate eiher. And from what I have seen from alot of these families is an increase in individuals who care not the opposite(step or gay).
Posted by: GH | March 15, 2007 12:29 PM
Let me see if I've got this correct: Keillor writes a piece saying that family and child raising should be about the kids, focusing on getting a good experience for the kids, not about the adults who are supposedly the "heads of household" in the families.
And a bunch of adults, who ostensibly are the heads of households, get stirred up about it.
What about the kids?
And, why can't a guy whose made the mistakes, let us know about it? My father advised me to delay marriage. About 30 was about right, he'd say. Most people get in a rush to get married about 21, and that's wrong, he'd say. He'd say, "I ought to know -- I tried it both ways." It was experience talking, not hypocrisy. We either learn from others' experience, or we get the experience first hand.
It's about the children. They look a lot different than we did, but that's superficial. They're kids, under the skin.
There's a good moral there, I think.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | March 15, 2007 12:35 PM
Am I the only one that thinks Garrison is simply laying the groundwork for a new 21rst Century nostalgia that is equally as bogus as the 1950's nostalgia of A Prairie Home Companion? I don't see what there is to be offended by here, except a general indictment of adults (in general) and homesexuals (in particular) as not doting on their children like they used to ...in the faux 1950s of the Prairie Home Companion, because they are too interested in themselves. Does his phrase "...and I guess we'll get used to it?" sound like the raving attacks of a homophobe? It is precisely because he's been married three times that allows him this insight, because if he's pointing the finger around the room, I'm sure he's bright enough to realize the finger points at him too.
Posted by: Russell Claus | March 15, 2007 12:35 PM
Well, here we can agree, although I don't think it borderline. People are making assumptions about what the text means. Take your "If black people etc" example from above: The words are meaningless, because black people are already parents. So are gays, and Keillor seems to be aware of this fact.
There is nothing offensive about the second paragraph you quote, either. Keillor is noting that there will be gay family complications to go along with the straight complications that already exist. You're reading a value judgment into the statement which doesn't have to exist.
All I got out of the piece was that Keillor needs a better agent and Salon a better editor.
By the way, I am usually a big fan of Dan Savage. In this case, I just wish he had spelled out his objections rather than spouting off about how offensive he found it.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 15, 2007 12:37 PM
Thank goodness someone else finally noticed what an astounding shitheel Garrison Keillor is; I've been beating this particular dead horse for years (ever since he said in is awful Salon advice column that nonreligious people should just grow up and go to church) and getting nothing more than puzzled indifference in response.
Posted by: Nick | March 15, 2007 12:37 PM
kersham, he's telling gay men that they are going to have to stop being "flamboyant" if they want to be accepted by society as parents, and comes out and says that "flamboyant" people are deficient in some way as parents. That doesn't strike you as absurd and homophobic, if not absurdly homophobic?
And no mention of lesbian parents, for some reason. Apparently he's a-okay with them!
I'm a big fan of Dan Savage too, but I agree that he lets his anger get in the way of formulating real arguments sometimes. My main response upon reading the entire Keillor column was pretty much "WTF?"
Posted by: Gretchen | March 15, 2007 12:48 PM
Is that a "stunningly idiotic" condemnation of gay marriage? Or a overly subtle acceptance?
Stop the presses! You mean the kids in Lake Wobegon weren't really all above average?
Keillor's a writer, a humorist, a satirist, a rambler. He's supposed to entertain. Failing that, he ought to make you think. Twice.
Posted by: Daniel Murphy | March 15, 2007 12:58 PM
I won't even begin to try to untagle the skein, but no child of same sex marriage is likely to have as confusing expierience as I did, trying to sort out their immediate family. I will suffice it to say, when my dad adopted me after marrying my mom, I gained a host of siblings - none of them my blood relations, some of them were not even my dad's biological kids. I also had cousins who's relation to my family were confusing as they were raised by my dad's ex and her husband, then by one of my brothers. Paternal grandma wasn't grandma (thank gods, she was an unpleasant woman), maternal grandpa changed a couple times when I was younger - it's all very complicated.
By the way, as Ed will attest, we had a pretty straight family - excepting our bi-sexual uncle who died of AIDS. Oddly enough, he had three children, all by the same mother and never confuse them by throwing his partners into the mix.
I am really disapointed by this. I have never been a huge PHC fan, though I did enjoy it once in a while. But I have always rather liked Garrison Keillor. Having a rather intolerant attitude towards bigotted asshats, I must regretfully change my opinion of Mr. Keillor.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 15, 2007 1:35 PM
No kidding, DuWayne. Our family takes a supercomputer to keep track of. I have one "real" brother (meaning we share both biological parents), two half brothers, two stepbrothers (but adopted by my father, so legally no longer stepbrothers, and that includes DuWayne), two adopted brothers (who were originally my cousins on my father's side but were adopted by my mother - after my parents divorced), two half sisters and a step sister. I just assume that every 3rd or 4th person I see is related to me in some way.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 15, 2007 2:08 PM
And for the record, I am a non-gay, very flamboyant parent. My five year old doesn't seem to care too much, in fact he rather likes it. So do his friends, especialy his friends in pre-school, when I do story a story time twice a week, or join them for field trips.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 15, 2007 2:14 PM
...I just assume that every 3rd or 4th person I see is related to me in some way.
And as that wingnut said last year, all of us who post here ARE you, which must make things even more confusing.
Posted by: Ed Bee | March 15, 2007 2:19 PM
Ed, DuWayne you mean you guys find a way to love one another and be like a family without having the same mother? Egads the horror!
Posted by: GH | March 15, 2007 2:20 PM
It's humor, people. Keillor's on our side. Nobody should be taking offense. There's a level of irony here that even Brayton seems to be missing.
Posted by: CCP | March 15, 2007 2:37 PM
When I read the Salon piece at first I assumed that Keillor was just getting aboard the anti-'hipster parent' bandwagon, but then he ventures into outright homophobia.
Whatever else Garrison Keillor is - uber-Midwesterner, unlikely advice columnist ('Mr. Blue'), subject of Robert Altman's last movie, human soporific - he's a professional nostalgist; in other words, a crotchety old fart. A timelessly unhip relic. But there's a fine line between cozily traditional sentiments and viciously reactionary ones.
Completely consistent with his persona, Garrison Keillor's review of Bernard-Henri Levy's 'American Vertigo' was downright nativist (if amusing in spots).
http://tinyurl.com/ab6jd
Posted by: Colugo | March 15, 2007 2:42 PM
ROTFLMAO!! Now that was a fun time! Thanks for the memories, almighty Raging one....
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 15, 2007 2:49 PM
Oh man, when I was reading the post I accidentally read "Dan Savage" as "Michael Savage." So for a few minutes I was very, very confused.
I really can't stand Keillor, and it utterly baffles me that people think he's funny (my parents included). If Lake Woebegone actually existed, I'd continuously petition congress to carpet-bomb the idiotic place.
Posted by: Chris Berez | March 15, 2007 3:38 PM
Perhaps they're related? Not by blood but by a civil union? That might explain why Weiner changed his name to match his husband's.
And then if they got divorced, this would also explain his bitterness towards homosexuals like his ex-husband.
lol (Yes, I'm kidding here.)
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 15, 2007 4:18 PM
Ouch....best not say that too loudly, lest Dan's real husband hears you!
Posted by: Gretchen | March 15, 2007 4:21 PM
Okay Gretchen, next time I'll be sure to use a smaller font...
;-)
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 15, 2007 4:31 PM
Keillor's Salon essay is beyond stupid. But I absolutely loved his joke about the penguins in A Prairie Home Companion
Posted by: Jason | March 15, 2007 4:38 PM
Garrison Keillor is a crashing bore.
Posted by: andythebrit | March 15, 2007 4:56 PM
I can't decide if this is more offensive than his singing. WhoTF gave him a microphone and an inlking he had a singing voice?
Posted by: rpsms | March 15, 2007 5:12 PM
To be fair, from the bit that was snipped, I didn't see Garrison claiming to be any better - he was just saying that back in the good old days when husbands could keep their women uneducated and unable to support themselves no matter how much they got beat down, beat UP, cheated on, yelled at, and generally trapped until death did they part, things were a lot less complicated.
True, no?
Posted by: Andrea | March 15, 2007 5:27 PM
Oddly enough, I had just read that Keillor column before popping over here. I'm not a big Keillor fan and though I've listened to PHC while on the road, I've never actively sought it out. The Salon piece was a pretty typical PHC monologue to my mind's ear; mildly amusing, quirky and disposable.
I think Dan Savage, whom I read far more often than Keillor, must be having a really bad hair day. I read nothing in that piece which would lead a reasonable person to believe, in Dan's words, that GK "hates, fears and knows nothing about gay couples."
Posted by: Pieter B | March 15, 2007 6:49 PM
Dan Savage is mostly pretty funny and smart, but he's only human, and occasionally something sets him off. Whatever, he'll have a new topic next week.
For those unfamiliar with him, his most famous column was when he named something unmentionable after senator Rick Santorum. He'll always have a soft spot on my sheets for that.... ;-)
Posted by: David Harmon | March 15, 2007 7:04 PM
"a soft spot on my sheets"
s/b "a wet spot on my sheets"
Posted by: Tom | March 16, 2007 12:44 AM
Actually, what gets to me even more than the weird ignorant ramblings about gay parents is this:
"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... Monogamy put the parents in the background where they belong and we children were able to hold center stage. We didn't have to contend with troubled, angry parents demanding that life be richer and more rewarding for them."
Right. There were no single parents in the '50s; no couples trapped by pregnancy into premature marriage and parenthood; no couples trapped by shame into staying in failed marriages; no desperately depressed housewives; no adultery; no poor families; no lives of quiet desperation.
And of course, no gay people.
You know, there's a reason kids who grew up in the '50s became wildly rebellious in the '60s and '70s...
What an idiot. I mean, yes, he's probably trying to be sardonic. But it sure seems to me like he's using his folksy jokiness to try to make a "serious" point. And his point is shaped like a corkscrew.
This guy needs to read "The Women's Room," stat.
Posted by: Greta Christina | March 16, 2007 2:23 AM
Bilerico gefends Keillor: http://www.bilerico.com/2007/03/002526.php
I still think the piece is terribly written, but I have no doubt that he's trying to lampoon the Leave it to Beaver mentaility. Where's Borat when you need him?
Posted by: kehrsam | March 16, 2007 9:08 AM
Good grief! You guys totally don't get Garrison Keillor. This piece is neither holier-than-thou nor homophobic in the slightest. I suggest you put your Garrison googles and read it again. This is tongue-in-cheek, people.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | March 16, 2007 4:54 PM
Was Garrison Keillor just talking tongue-in-cheek when he told Chet Atkins that Janis Ian wasn't "family entertainment"?
I happen to really like Keillor's show, but I do hear the sneer in his voice when he goes outside his very narrow little world--a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't live there if you paid me to.
Posted by: adamsj | March 17, 2007 9:48 AM
A third-hand account that mentions no names and provides no context for the offending remarks? Not very convincing.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | March 17, 2007 1:59 PM
Who are Chet Atkins and Janis Ian? I could google but I don't really feel like it.
Anyway...I'm going to guess folk musicians. Who are entirely family appropriate but were probably anti-war during the Vietnam era or something, so they didn't make the PHC cut. Or probably they have some liberal political songs or something.
I hate that show, by the way. Except the sound effect guy, He is pretty amazing. And I am no Keillor fan, but I think it's satire. It's like Borat and the horrible things he says about killing Jews... he isn't mocking Jews.
Maybe not, but I'm guessing in his own fuddy-dud way that's what he's doing.
Posted by: Leni | March 17, 2007 3:55 PM
Who is Chet Atkins???!?!?!!!?!?!!!!
Gads...
Chet was once asked to list the 10 most influential guitarists of the 20th century. He led with Django Reinhardt and put himself at 5th - and he underrated himself. He played the White House for every president from Kennedy through papa Bush. He pioneered the extremely difficult and versatile thumb and 2-or-3 finger picking style, and a couple generations of guitarists have been dependent on what they've learned his style. If you ever see a guitarist thumb and finger picking, with his little finger or two little fingers holding location on the face of the guitar, that guitarist's style is derived from Chet. Mark Knopfler (Dire Straights) is one major example.
He was also VP of country music for RCA at a time when country was fading, and was a major force in bridging through to a newer generation. He invented the "Nashville Sound" and brought a jazz influence to his own and a reasonable chunk of other's country music playing. He brought he first major black country artist to prominence - Charley Pride. For a reasonably long period, he was the most powerful person in country music, and arguably one of the 10 most powerful people in all of popular music, in this country.
Atkins was not wrong often. If Keillor said no to Chet Atkins about an artist Chet was pushing, that shows amazing strength of will and self confidence on Keillor's part - and is also pretty damn strong evidence that Keillor was a "full-fledged upside-down-and-sideways all-kinds-of-fool".
Posted by: Lee | March 17, 2007 5:34 PM
lol Lee, don't freak out.
Ohhhh. Well that explains it then. Not really a country music fan :)
For some reason I immediately think "hippie" when I hear Janice Ian's name. I just assumed he was one too. Guilt by association and all...
Although, now that I think about it that insult to Keillor is pretty much a dead give away. That's the kind of insult I'd expect to hear in Lake Woebegone :)
Posted by: Leni | March 17, 2007 6:27 PM
Leni -
I have to admit, I didn't know Ian either. But when I googled her, the first thing that comes up (before her main site), is an article she wrote about free music downloads and how they can be a net positive. That in itself is not entirely indicitive of her being a hippy, but helps. Then I clicked to her main page. She publishes under Rude Girl (tm) and is a singer songwriter. Add to that the picture and her being a lesbanian - she is totaly hippy.
On the "who's Chet Atkins?" I can only shake my head, in horror. It depresses me, how little people know about the most influencial musicians of the last hundred years. The thing is, that Atkins' inluence extended far beyond country. His playing made an impression on a lot of musicians that would surprise you. If your a U2 fan, you might be surprised to learn that Atkins had a huge influence on The Edge (guitar lead for U2). He also influenced quite a few of the hair bands of the eighties, including Metallica (i'd name more, but I have managed to supress my memories of much of the eighties in self defense - especialy where music is concerned). He also influenced a lot of folk musicians, but that is not so suprising.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 17, 2007 9:22 PM
I've been listening to and reading Keillor for years and believe me, he's on the side of the angels here. His style would best be described as "bemused observer" of both the white-bread fantasy nostalgia and more recently of gay culture. Yes he uses stereotypes in his culture but stereotypes are connective imagery. It is how he uses them that counts. Almost all his meaning is subtext.
You can take to the bank that he is in favor of gay rights and he has said so explicitly in many interviews. His approach is that gay-friendly places will reap the benefits of gays moving there, and that gay-unfriendly places will pay the consequences of gays moving out. It may not be the same approach you want to use, but the intended long-range result is the same.
Try, for just a moment, to imagine someone who is on your side but does not throw bombs. Who speaks softly to the doubts that his more conservative fans might have, who lays groundwork. There's room for a gentle approach in the spectrum just as there is room for bomb-throwing.
Honestly, this invective against Keillor is misguided. If you don't like his narratives, fine, but he will reach a lot of people that you have no possible chance of reaching.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | March 18, 2007 12:05 PM
While it's not surprising that this controversy would attract the usual swarm of cretinous dung beetles who relish the chance to at attack the talented and successful, it's distressing that the appalling amount of actual homophobia in this country has finally driven even intelligent, perceptive people like Dan Savage over the edge. I can only assume that he has become so sensitized by the war on gay people that he can no longer tell the difference between alluding to stereotypes and endorsing them.
Posted by: James Custer | March 18, 2007 7:04 PM