…and this is a 
Go back to Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor
Category: Religion • Stupidity
Posted on: March 15, 2007 6:09 PM, by PZ Myers
Garrison Keillor has done it again: he's written another insipid article loaded with casual bigotry, this time against gays. I'm pleased to see that Dan Savage has savaged him, so I don't need to go on at length.
However, this really isn't the first time Keillor has done this—he has a history of unthinking stereotyping and rejection of gays and atheists. He's an excellent example of why, when I see the Religious Right and the Religious Left, I don't think the problem is the Right or Left…it's the Religious.
My criticism of Keillor from 2005 is below the fold. Not only does he reject atheism and homosexuality, but he does so on the most trivial grounds—gay people want to get married to economize on their wardrobe? It's nuts.
I have to confess to having had a fondness for Garrison Keillor and the Prairie Home Companion. I know it's sappy and maudlin, and it speaks most clearly to a fairly narrow cultural mindset, but it's my culture. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, but my mother and grandparents were Minnesota transplants of Scandinavian descent, and that understated Northern Lutheran lifestyle was familiar ground. The rhythms of the speech, the homey tales of Lake Wobegon, even the hymns they often sing are pleasant reminders of growing up. My grandparents were devotees of the cult of Lawrence Welk, but I imagine they would have been very comfortable with Garrison Keillor, too.
I also like that he's a vocal Democrat, and has spoken strongly on liberal values. He represents some of the best of the good ol' down-home American attitude. But…
But he also represents some of the worst. He was brought up in a fundamentalist home, and all too often, it shows through. For instance, here are a few examples from his stint as an advice columnist on Salon:
I've had a crush on the girl who lives downstairs since she moved in. We have gotten to know each other to some extent and are on friendly terms, and I feel we are very different people. I am an atheist/humanist and she is the youth group coordinator at a local Catholic church. She is not dogmatic or anything, but it is a stumbling block for me that we will not get along on a very basic level if a relationship should occur. I wonder if it is possible for the secular and the sacred to come together in harmony. Please help me with my conundrum.
Guy Upstairs
Dear Guy,
Keep your mitts off that nice Catholic girl, you heathen, and go bother the Unitarian girls. Life presents enough stumbling blocks in the natural course of things without you going and walking into trees. You asked for my advice and that's it. Cool it. And if you can't cool it, then start reading your Bible and taking instruction in the faith.
Yikes. That was harsh and rather one-sided—I would have advised the poor fellow to get to know the girl better, and discover if their different religious beliefs might not be more compatible than he thinks, and if he were the Catholic and she the atheist I would have said the same thing. Keillor seems to have a knee-jerk intolerance towards non-Christians. Here's another example:
I'm in my late 20s, looking forward to moving in together with my boyfriend, whom I adore, and getting on with our lives. We are committed to each other. My parents are working very hard to convince me that if I want to have kids with him (I do), we need to get married and he needs to convert to my religion. My sweetie is an atheist anarchist who has thought about his beliefs and is a very principled fellow. I don't know what to do, but my parents are putting on the full-court press and it's very upsetting. I don't want to shun my family but I adore this man and I just want everyone to get along. Can you suggest some reading material?
N.Y. Woman
Dear N.Y.,
Yes, I'd suggest the sacred texts of your religion, and I'd suggest that your sweetie read them. He can be an atheist anarchist on his own time, but if he wants to marry you, he's got to marry your family, and he should know the religion and be comfortable around it and able to hear it talked about. If you were farmers, he should know corn from dandelions, right? So get him on the ball. Atheistic anarchism is a refuge for the immature and indolent. Smoke him out.
It's strange how he notes that "he's got to marry your family", but doesn't seem to recognize that she also has to marry his, and most importantly, him. Perhaps there should be some reciprocal acknowledgment of each other's beliefs, hmmm? Would her family be comfortable around atheism? And why assume he would be uncomfortable with it? More often than not, atheists are familiar with the religious—many of us grew up with them—and it's frequently far less upsetting for us to be around Christians than for some Christians to notice our existence.
Case in point, I'm willing to overlook his casual dismissal of atheism; I'm used to it. The indifferent bigotry of the religious is something you have to get accustomed to if you are going to get by in our society. This weekend, though, Keillor published an opinion piece in the Strib that really left me cold.
I favor marriage between people whose body parts are not similar. I'm sorry, but same-sex marriage seems timid, an attempt to save on wardrobe and accessories. Marrying somebody from your team. Still, it's probably good for them to have to fight for the right to marry. My parents eloped against strong opposition from both families and they were in love for the rest of their lives and held hands and were tender on into their 80s. Of course they always had fresh strawberries.
Can you trivialize it any more, Garrison? Homosexuals only want to marry to share clothes…do heterosexuals only marry to share the rent and get that tax deduction? I think homosexuals want to fall in love for the rest of their lives and hold hands and eat strawberries together, too, and it is not our privilege to stand in their way. Keillor's parents eloped (as did mine, by the way), but despite their family opposition they could stand up as adults and get society's blessing on their independence and their partnership. Gay marriage is about granting consenting adults autonomy and recognition and public commitment to one another. There is no good cause to deny it, and pretending it is just about sharing wardrobe accessories is contemptible.
Ah, but again he reminds me of my grandparents: they were good people, loving and kind, and I cared for them very much, but my grandfather hated "the Japs" and could be spiteful and mean when he was drunk, and my grandmother warned me not to date any Negroes when I went off to college. That I loved my grandparents doesn't make their unthinking racism any less wrong.
When he's being shallow and stupid, Keillor doesn't take any half-measures. I thought this was particularly weak:
Politics is transitory, too. The big huffers and woofers come and go and the tidal changes they promise don't quite happen. Look at the Conservative Revolution: What did it change? It got us into one reckless war in Iraq and it steered the economy toward the reef, but any fool could have done that, you didn't need a conservative.
All it got us was a war and a damaged economy, but no big deal. Tell that to those parents who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, or the unemployed and homeless who are in despair. It makes a difference. Imagine if this country had had a responsible, competent president in 2001 who, instead of launching an unjustified war and spilling blood and treasure on foreign sands, had invested in sensible domestic security and made only measured strikes against those responsible for attacks against our country. Imagine that we hadn't sunk trillions of dollars deeper in debt, and were not committed to an insane war that has damage our international reputation and committed us to years of bloody folly. Only a fool would think that having Bush and his neo-con cronies in office has made no difference in the history of our country. Bush made a difference—for the worse.
Comments
I confess I had only heard ruminations of Mr. Keillor's vacillations on specific subjects, but this is a pretty stark example. Unfortunate indeed, and it takes some serious weight out of that tone heard over NPR signals nationwide on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings.
His opinions on these two subjects seem so hardened and unprofessionally argued for (is there a professional way to argue them?) that it almost doesn't sound like it's even him. But I have read a few of his Salon pieces in the past, and it sounded like good ol' home on the prairie Garrison.
This ellicits one of those distressed "WTF?" reactions from me.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 15, 2007 6:29 PM
Well, at least Keillor can still get on national radio and mock the stupid president.
I am disappointed to see an idol of mine has feet of clay.
Maybe I can just chalk this up as just Minnesota matter?
didn't think so.
What about all that Reader's Digest grade poetry he assembles?
I just wouldn't take a comedian that seriously.
Posted by: greensmile | March 15, 2007 6:36 PM
All praise Dan Savage. His column this week contains an exceptionally witty putdown of IDers.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove
Savage is a national treasure. American's can feel some pride.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 6:48 PM
Oi veh I wish I hadn't read that.
It'll be a long time before I can enjoy PHC (or at least the NFLW) again.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 15, 2007 6:50 PM
Oh, and all hail PZ as well!
Just think what this country could have been with decent leadership over the last few years.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 6:51 PM
NPR stinks and Keillor is just another glaring example of why. Thank God I live in a civilized part of the country where I have numerous college radio stations to choose from.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 15, 2007 6:59 PM
I pictured him as Mr. Garrison from South Park while reading that. The similarities seem to go beyond just their names though.
Posted by: Wesam | March 15, 2007 7:00 PM
And here I thought Keillor had a gay son.
Posted by: MAJeff | March 15, 2007 7:00 PM
Slightly OT,
From CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/evangelical.rift/
Global warming gap among evangelicals widens
"We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children," said the letter, which was signed by prominent religious conservatives such as James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those people are scarier than any Bond villain. At least the Bond villains only wanted gold bullion. These people don't mind if our planet burns to a crisp.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 7:08 PM
Gay couples want legal recognition of their unions for very concrete, material benefits & basic human rights issues. Spousal benefits, Next-of-kin recognition that automatically grants your loved one the right to make decisions for you if you are medically incapacitated and unable to do so...this sort of bigotry is startling coming from Keillor, but I guess that's religion for you.
I suspect the harsh love advice to the mixed couples is also kind of a "circle the wagons" response...heaven forbid the religious partner question HER views and maybe opt for atheism? Perhaps there are Anarchists and/or atheists who are immature and indolent. There are also some that have come to those positions through well-considered self-examination and a deep analysis of the world around them. Lord knows there are plenty of indolent and immature gawd-squaders out there.
Still, I'm inclined to take a Tevye-like position for atheists and humanists. Do your best to seek out another atheist or humanists as a potential life-partner first. Don't settle for a wishy-washy agnostic, they may turn on you later. And people who are only nominally religious now tend to become very religious when the reality of children enter the picture, or with age, or both. Find a nice atheist girl and save yourself a world of woe. I speak from oh-too-painful personal experience on this one, folks.
You gotta accept people as they are...it's folly anytime we tell ourselves "oh, s/he's change" or worse "I can change him/her". Religion, as Marx said, is an opiate, and as with other addictions, the only thing that can make the addict quit is the addict admitting they have a problem and making a conscious decision to quit.
I'm wondering if the girl in the 2nd example is Jewish, since most of the time the parents wouldn't be so insistent on a potential son-in-law converting to THEIR religion. The nice thing about Judaism if you're lucky enough to be born into it, is you can be an outspoken atheist but still be accepted as a Jew....better that than marrying a Christian or converting to Christianity or both! I don't know about conversion Jews, though. If you convert under Orthodox auspices then later come out as an Atheist, I don't know if they revoke your "Jewishness" or not. I've often said if there was a way I could convert to SECULAR Judaism, I'd do it. ;-)
But I reiterate, marriage is a very serious thing, and if the two partners aren't of one mind on that God question, either YES or NO, it usually only ends in tears at some point on down the line.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Posted by: JJR | March 15, 2007 7:13 PM
Believe it or not, Prairie Home Companion gets some air time here in New Zealand. It plays on Radio New Zealand National (the closest equivalent would be the US's NPR) and usually over the summer months when people are on vacation.
I've got to say that I've never warmed to it. In fact I find it freakin' depressing. Each to his own, I guess.
Posted by: ScienceBreath | March 15, 2007 7:25 PM
The saddest part is that Keillor can be, and often is, funny, yet he had to steal a 15-year-old Seinfeld bit about gay couples sharing wardrobe (and Seinfeld's formulation was actually funny).
The most hypocritical part, of course, is that he's decrying the state of marriage while being twice divorced.
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 15, 2007 7:41 PM
I'm willing to read a couple of his comments a little more generously. His comments on gay marriage, while stating clearly that he's against it, do suggest that he acknowledges that gay people can and do form lasting, committed emotional relationships. That's one up on a lot of people with conservative social views. And as for his comment on conservatism, I read that more as saying, "Big ideas come and go, but stupidity is forever."
This is a limited defense, of course. The religious bigotry makes me sad.
Posted by: Patrick | March 15, 2007 7:50 PM
Garrison Keillor comes from the Plymouth Brethren. I grew up in a PB household (the Exclusive cult branch) and I can attest to the fact that you have to travel a very long distance to the left from the nether regions of PB-dom to even reach a middle of the road conservative. I'm not defending his attitude towards gays and atheists, just trying to explain how he can seem like a liberal on political issues, and yet have social conservative leanings.
Posted by: Todd Adamson | March 15, 2007 7:50 PM
Those nice advice column pieces of his merit a bat to the head. That procedure would have to be beneficial, since it could not possibly make more stupid than he already is.
Posted by: valhar2000 | March 15, 2007 7:54 PM
Ya I had no idea about his marital history, but he does smack of Newt for this. In fact, it might as well *HAVE* been Newt that wrote this. No doubt they are on the same side of this issue now.
So this begs the question: is Keillor the liberal Newt? I say maybe not since GK still cannot stand BushCo. But then, Newt has also been less than charitable to Bush lately...it's a tough call.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 15, 2007 7:54 PM
This seems as good a time as any to mention here that I play in The Gated Community, a Marxist, anti-Keillor country band based in Minneapolis. Check us out here; I especially recommend our gender-bending "(I Can't Tell If My Baby's A) Boy or a Girl".
Posted by: Chris B. | March 15, 2007 8:23 PM
I doubt many of you will agree with me, but I think Keillor's piece is failed satire (some of the comments over at Dan Savage's place point this out too). Keillor is a satirist and can be very effective at it. This is not one of his effective works, however. Satire has to be spot-on or it fails and this is pretty clearly a failure.
I doubt Keillor is anti-gay, although you can't tell it from this recent dreck.
As for his advice, well... Back in the 1980s, I worked in a bookstore in his neighborhood. It was well-known among us that he was a jerk and all the booksellers tried to steer clear of him when he came in. He has two failed marriages and has crapped on a lot of people personally and professionally. Who would go to such a man and expect good advice?
And, BlueIndependent? It RAISES the question. It doesn't BEG the question.
Posted by: fardels bear | March 15, 2007 8:37 PM
That's true. It's probably healthy for couples to overcome societal disapproval. It makes their relationship stronger, and makes sure their love is true. Next week: Why we should outlaw interracial marriage - we're only trying to help them by putting obstacles in their way. (roll eyes)
Posted by: BC | March 15, 2007 8:38 PM
RE: "He's an excellent example of why, when I see the Religious Right and the Religious Left, I don't think the problem is the Right or Left...it's the Religious."
When people decide that the all the issues of life, politics, economics, culture and social order, are determined by the contents of one book, they may not come up with the same answers, but their answers are equally unconvincing.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | March 15, 2007 8:38 PM
It's so very disappointing to hear Keillor make those comments. He's considered (or was considered) a role model by many Americans.
Posted by: Paguroidea | March 15, 2007 9:04 PM
I've heard the same argument before, that this is just poorly done satire. Unfortunately, we're seeing a couple year's worth of pattern here -- you'd think he'd realize it didn't get a laugh the first time.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2007 9:09 PM
It is hard to believe that the first one is not satire. I mean REALLY HARD to believe. That sounds like the kind of stuff you would find in some hate group brochure.
Posted by: fred | March 15, 2007 9:19 PM
There was a time when Pharyngula was one of my top-three blogs, but I find reading it to be incredibly painful these days. It seems so bitter, so intolerant, so bereft of sympathy for flawed human beings. It makes me wince every time I check in on it lately.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | March 15, 2007 9:41 PM
I'm afraid this shows the sad state of liberalism in this country today. I am disgusted every time I hear democrats get up and advocate for "civil unions" and other related concepts as alternatives to marriage for gay people. "Separate but equal." Haven't we been down this road before? It just sickens me to think that people who call themselves liberal believe that gay couples need a different kind of institution, as if theirs was a different kind of love.
I have absolutely no doubt that what my gay friends feel when they look into the eyes of their beloved is exactly the same emotion that I feel when I look into my wife's eyes. Human love is human love, and implying that gay people feel something different sounds uncomfortably like the slavery apologists' claims that slaves didn't really suffer when their masters beat them. It is a denial of their basic humanity.
Instead of raising consciousness on this issue, however, politicians feel they need to bend over backwards not to offend bigots. That's not leadership. That's appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Posted by: David Livesay | March 15, 2007 9:54 PM
Indeed. The nice, tolerant, sympathetic thing to do would be to join the bandwagon and insult gays and non-believers.
Posted by: BC | March 15, 2007 9:56 PM
I too think this is satire, no matter how long the pattern. As a sporadic listener of A Prairie Home Companion I read Keillor's columns with his gently wry voice speaking. My perception is that he makes fun of the simpleness and religion that are that rural midwestern culture (transplanted to the northwest, where I too grew up).
The man amuses by gently mocking himself and his people and he can be a bit off the mark. Irony is dangerous stuff, at any time it can miss with some or all of your intended audience and then it just sounds rude.
Posted by: Desert Donkey | March 15, 2007 9:57 PM
This is just a test, because the spam filter told me I had probably been banned from posting!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 10:05 PM
It's irony, PZ. I love your blog, but you missed it this time.
Posted by: Adam | March 15, 2007 10:06 PM
(OK, I think I found the offending word. Sorry, spam filter.)
Oh- for those times of old!
In those halcyon days, when Pharyngula was one of Daryl's top three blogs and PZ had none of that bitterness and intolerance we see so often in him now.
Daryl, we hardly knew ye!
Maybe we can get PZ to start taking Pro*ac and obtain a subscription to Reader's Digest. We could buy him some slippers and a velvet smoking jacket.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 10:07 PM
All I know is you people are taking Garrison Keillor much more seriously than he takes himself.
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 15, 2007 10:08 PM
what exactly is concern trolling and is daryl doing it?
Posted by: fred | March 15, 2007 10:23 PM
I've already got the slippers, thanks, and I wouldn't have to smoke in the smoking jacket, would I? Filthy habit and all that.
Maybe if they were pink bunny slippers I would have a happier outlook on the world.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2007 10:25 PM
Max,
That's the problem with political comedians. They can always evade responsibility by claiming their comments are an attempt at humor or satire.
Garrison clearly does want to be taken seriously when he talks about politics. He also had a responsibility (whether he liked it or not) to answer readers' problems seriously when he worked as an advice columnist for Salon.
I think many political comedians do an admirable job of handling difficult issues- Stewart, Colbert, Franken, Maher...
The problem with Keillor (at least as evidenced by PZ's quotes) is that either you assume he wants to be taken seriously, in which case he's sometimes an idiot, or you assume that he wants it to be satire, in which case he's unfunny.
I can forgive offensive jokes if they're genuinely funny offensive jokes. Bill Hicks was among the funniest and most offensive comedians I've heard- AND he made thoughtful political points.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 10:29 PM
Now I happen to live in Minnesota, and I listen to PHC fairly regularly, and I've even been to one of the PHC shows. As I said at the beginning, I'm pretty familiar with the Minnesota style, and I know what kind of wry, self-deprecating humor is common around here.
Unfortunately, these examples don't ring true. They sound more like the gnawing resentment of a bigot masked by Keillor's understated comedy. The man can poke fun at himself this way, but you can't convince me that Keillor is a godless homosexual...and if he's not making fun of himself or the Minnesota stereotype we have here, it falls flat and looks rather nasty.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2007 10:31 PM
PZ,
Better make those blue bunny slippers lest Garrison Keillor have another reason to dump on you.
Posted by: David Livesay | March 15, 2007 10:36 PM
Oh- and to follow up...
Dan Savage is a supreme example of someone who's offensive, funny and has a keen sense of moral responsibility.
----------------------------------------------------------
P.Z.: Maybe they do discounts for the over 50's on Reader's Digest subscriptions. You could also do with reading 'The Little Book of Calm', or 'Chicken Soup for the Soul'.
You'll die of heart failure if you keep on being so intolerant of theocratic fascists all the time. Remember, it's hard to hate Republican warmongers after a nice bubble bath.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 10:37 PM
Christian Burnham:
Oddly enough, I discovered that the spam filter blocks messages containing Prozac earlier today. It joins the no-no list alongside incest and soma (that last one is what really throws me).
Sweet Lady Isis, yes!
Or:
And also:
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 15, 2007 10:41 PM
I considered they might be satire, but after checking the Salon articles, I see the letters addressing atheism are each preceded by non-satirical responses to other letters. I doubt an experienced writer like Keillor would switch tone so drastically in the middle of a piece. I'm forced to agree with PZ that Keillor's bigotry is showing.
Posted by: Anna | March 15, 2007 10:44 PM
"Concern trolling" is loosely defined as pretending to be a fan of a site/philosophy/political association in order to attack it while disguising that attack as feedback/constructive criticism.
Is he? Possibly... but it's hard to say.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 15, 2007 10:45 PM
No PZ, you shouldn't smoke.
You know why?
God hates fags.
(Let's see what the spam filter does with that one.)
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 15, 2007 10:48 PM
I've heard the same argument before, that this is just poorly done satire. Unfortunately, we're seeing a couple year's worth of pattern here -- you'd think he'd realize it didn't get a laugh the first time.
hmm. somebody on Savage's blog pointed out this link:
http://www.nathancallahan.com/garrison.html
where the author analyzes Keillor's positions on the plotical platforms the dem party should be adopting if they want to woo red staters.
In looking at that article, it seems to me that Keillor's latest piece is a further attempt by him to try to get the democratic party to back-burner social issues in favor of what he views as the vastly more important and ubiquitous economic issues that many red staters actually agree with the dems on.
so, while it might have been poor satire, it's likely that the aim is not at all at the gay marriage issue, but rather a not-so-subtle poke at what he views is slowing the acceptance of the dem party.
I bet he is surprised that the argument did not become one over the focus of the dem party, instead of his supposed homophobia.
I predict if he responds to the attacks at all, he will again try to point out what he was saying in the article linked to above.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 15, 2007 10:59 PM
It's so very disappointing to hear Keillor make those comments. He's considered (or was considered) a role model by many Americans.
Why would he be considered a role model. Can't people tell it's an act? And a corny one at that. Doh!
Wow, there sure are a lot of trolls in this thread, by the way. Holy crap...
Posted by: 386sx | March 15, 2007 11:01 PM
I dunno, the advice column excerpts strike me as being perfectly reasonable. Somewhat too-subtle in the assumptions they make about the world, perhaps, but reasonable nonetheless.
"Life presents enough stumbling blocks in the natural course of things without you going and walking into trees."
I actually got a chuckle out of that line.
Posted by: Chris Chandler | March 15, 2007 11:12 PM
Is it too late to suggest that Mr Keillor not be sent to Lake Wobegon, but, rather, be thrown to an agitated wobbegong, instead?
Posted by: Stanton | March 15, 2007 11:20 PM
I found this on a site called Gay & Lesbian Humanists
http://galha.blogspot.com/2007/03/keillor-savaged.html
Garrison Keillor:
"I think that gay marriage is also an issue that does no good for us and I want to see us divest ourselves of this. ... The symbolism of gay people marrying is terribly potent, terrible powerful, and we ignore this at our peril in our party."
Radio interview with above quotes; Keillor discusses other topics, including abortion
http://www.nathancallahan.com/garrison.html
It should also be noted that Dan Savage himself has repeatedly been accused of prejudice against bisexuals (biphobia) for years.
See, for example, this letter to the editor by bisexual activist Robyn Ochs:
http://tinyurl.com/3xzy5t
Posted by: Colugo | March 15, 2007 11:31 PM
Garrison and I were colleagues when we were both much (much) younger. I saw him in concert a couple of years ago. It was pretty clear to me at the concert that he'd found God through getting sober in conjunction with triple bypass surgery. He was definitely different than the guy I'd grown up listening to on MPR (I am from Lake Wobegone, International Falls, PZ). This is a bad piece of writing, but it definitely reflects the changes I've seen in him.
Posted by: Melanie | March 15, 2007 11:54 PM
That said, anybody who has been in 12 step programs for a while knows that you "don't take anyone else's inventory." He's showing newbie nerves.
Posted by: Melanie | March 15, 2007 11:56 PM
It's kind of like finding out that Andy Griffith was a rabid racist. (Although I think there were at least a couple episodes that showed he wasn't.)
If I were clever and had the time I'd write a satirical response in the form of a NFLW. It's odd, the tagline ("Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking . . . ") implies open-mindedness in matters of gender.
Maybe if he didn't have such a great voice we wouldn't have thought he was so smart.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 15, 2007 11:59 PM
Whoa. Way to take some stuff out of context, Colugo.
Keillor was speaking about issues that the Democratic party should ditch, in the interests of actually winning some elections and getting a bit of power. He wasn't referring to society in general getting rid of those ideas:
"I think that gay marriage is also an issue that does no good for us and I want to see us divest ourselves of this," Keillor says. "The symbolism of gay people marrying is terribly potent, terrible powerful, and we ignore this at our peril in our party.
"I think that gay marriage/union/benefits must be a state and city matter. Gays have tended to migrate from hostile places to friendlier places -- San Francisco, New York, New Orleans -- and this migration has been a boon to the friendlier places. Gay-friendly areas are the richer for it, in all sorts of ways. Tolerance has economic and cultural benefits. And so we can allow Missouri or South Carolina or South Dakota to be hostile to gay marriage and suffer the consequences."
If you read the whole interview, he's basically saying that he'd be willing to sacrifice the rights of gays in South Carolina in order to preserve some degree of economic stability for the middle class. Yes, that sucks, but it certainly doesn't mean he hates gays.
(And yes, I agree that it's not so great satire/irony. But then, America suffers from a serious irony deficiency)
Posted by: Dani | March 16, 2007 12:04 AM
PZ, you were wrong. There's nothing casual about the bigotry in that article.
There is, JJR: the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Now I wish I was Jewish so I could convert with you. ;-)
Blake and Christian:
One of my favourite Bill Hicks bits is his take down of the creationists ("Dinosaurs in the Bible") (audio here).
Also:
Posted by: False Prophet | March 16, 2007 12:48 AM
I think there is a difference between Garrison Keillor and the PHC. The latter is of course his work, and his personality and proclivities show through in it, but it is also an artistic effort that involves acting. Jack Palance was, by all accounts, a sweet man, but never played that role in a movie.
In other words, it's OK to like the PHC.
And about that, I always say: People who are not from Minnesota often don't realize that the Prairie Home Companion is not really a joke. On the other hand, Minnesotans often don't realize that it is a joke...
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 16, 2007 12:57 AM
I found it perfectly clear in Colugo's quote that Keillor was talking about the Democratic Party in particular. Probably because it had the word "party" in it.
Replace "gays" with "blacks." Still acceptable to you? Care to explain why not?
Posted by: cbutterb | March 16, 2007 12:59 AM
Christian, et al.
Read the Salon piece again. Note how it ends. He's in a classroom with children who look and sound very different than the children he grew up with. He's there to tell them a story about "the old days" when he was young, and what does he tell them? Is it true? Or is it a silly story built around old stereotypes and myths?
Is he making fun of the children? Does he not like them? Or is he making fun of himself, making fun of his discomfort in the face of relentless change?
Is this a man who ever has spoken about tradition without poking fun at it?
His ideas in the piece are complex and subtle. He's not writing a fucking political manifesto. And he's using gay couples more as a metaphor for a generation than anything else. A metaphor for a group in which he obviously includes himself.
But Keillor never says or writes anything, I don't believe, that is meant to be taken as a political assertion. He's illustrating a point of view much like an actor portraying a character, and you are supposed to understand his words as an expression of that point of view, not as a plank in a political platform.
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 16, 2007 1:04 AM
Keillor's shtick has always been about positioning himself as the voice of a mythical middle America, with just a tiny bit of big-city irony. Sometimes it works but most of the time it's cloying as hell. It's because Savage can't or won't speak from that place that he's incisive and funny.
Posted by: atomic dog | March 16, 2007 1:13 AM
Dan Savage, whoever the hell that is, obviously missed the point too. He can't wait to tell us that Keillor has been married THREE TIMES, and has thus created for his children the kind of confused network of family relationships he bemoans in his article. As if Keillor wasn't aware of that when he wrote the article.
Not every thought is an assertion. Not every observation is a judgment.
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 16, 2007 1:22 AM
Max,
As far as I'm aware, Keillor IS very much concerned with politics in his columns.
If you look at his writing for Salon, you'll see that at least 50% is devoted to political issues.
http://dir.salon.com/topics/garrison_keillor/
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 16, 2007 1:23 AM
Max,
Savage wouldn't have brought up Keillor's divorces if it weren't for Keillor's hypocrisy.
It's quite fair to scrutinize the personal lives of celebs/pols who pontificate about the personal lives of the public.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 16, 2007 1:26 AM
We're ALL concerned with politics. That doesn't mean everything everybody writes is a political diatribe. Sometimes people just write about the things they contemplate, that intrigue or mystify them. Not everybody is crystal-clear in his righteous indignation and ready to assert certainties.
Sometimes people write things that are subtle, thoughtful, even conflicted. It takes a lot more courage to express your struggle with conflicting values than it is to crow about your certainties like some loud-mouthed adolescent. It's not as entertaining and doesn't drive traffic, but it takes more courage and maturity.
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 16, 2007 1:35 AM
"Savage wouldn't have brought up Keillor's divorces if it weren't for Keillor's hypocrisy."
I don't know what to say to you. To accuse Keillor of hypocrisy you have to believe Keillor is a very oblivious and unreflective man, which we all know he isn't. You honestly think he was passing judgment on others from his glass house? That's not Keillor. He was talking about things very close to his personal experience, and he wasn't criticizing anybody for anything he hadn't already criticized in himself.
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 16, 2007 1:42 AM
Max,
You seem to be implying that people who take a differing view to this particular published columnist are 'loud-mouthed adolescents' who don't possess 'courage and maturity'.
You seem to feel that Keillor is so refined and delicate, that his political columns should be above discussion (at least from plebs like us). Only people with an advanced degree in understated wit and irony should be allowed to tackle this satirical master.
I think you're doing a disservice to Keillor and to us. We're all adults. I don't think anything anyone has said has slipped into yah-boo name-calling. I also think that Keillor is strong enough to take criticism.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 16, 2007 2:46 AM
Growing up in Albert Lea in the 80s, there was one black guy and one Latina in my high school graduating class. We made fun of the atheist in jr high.
Let's just say that it was not really an ideal environment for understanding the traces race and culture and gender have made on the larger American landscape. From what I've seen from my classmates, many have taken relatively strong conscious stances towards egalitarianism (live and let live), but still are haunted by biases learned in the cradle. "Gay folks are OK, but I don't want to be around them."
Perhaps I idealize the place, but I do hear that from Minnesotans, and from Keillor on the whole. "I have centuries of distaste for you, but I'm trying my best to be nice." A bit condescending, but it gives me hope for the next generation.
Posted by: triangular gutters | March 16, 2007 3:44 AM
Max,
Dan Savage is 1) a syndicated sex advice columnist (check your local left leaning weekly rag or The Stranger in Seattle online, and 2) a gay man with a long-term partner (if they lived in Massachusetts instead of Washington state, they might conceivable by husbands by now) with an adopted a son who's about to enter his teens (if I recall his age correctly; he may be slightly younger). He's seriously pissed off at the outrageous comments public figures like Keillor feel they can make about gay parents. I don't blame him.
If it makes you more comfortable to believe that column was intended as satire, feel free. You're wrong. It's part and parcel of an attitude that's constantly thrown in the face of gay parents.
Posted by: usagi | March 16, 2007 4:08 AM
Mr. Burnham, don't you let that straw man push you around. You show that sum'bitch who's boss. God, I hate those fucking straw men, don't you?
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 16, 2007 4:30 AM
Yeah, shame on us! We think Keillor said mean things about atheists and homosexuals just because, uh.. he did. But, obviously, he couldn't have meant these things, because that wouldn't reflect well on him. We all know he isn't a bigot, so obviously his remarks are in no way bigoted.
Is that what you want to hear, Max?
If I cared to, I suppose I could convince myself that he's saying any laudable thing I liked if I worked hard enough at it. But it's a weird advice column where the recipients are expected to pay more attention to subtle hints than what the text says directly. Not every thought is an assertion, but isn't it obvious that you shouldn't assert anything unless it's meant to be an assertion?
Even if I buy your odd claim that Garrison Keillor is always portraying the character of Garrison Keillor rather than some real Garrison Keillor, I'll feel free to complain about Keillor and let him sort out whether it's the man or the character that deserves it.
Posted by: wrg | March 16, 2007 4:39 AM
Posted by: wrg | March 16, 2007 4:41 AM
usagi:
I understand you don't agree with the man. That doesn't mean he's a rotten person and we shouldn't think about what he's suggesting we think about.
I never said he was being satirical. Generally, the man's not a satirist. I said he was being subtle, thoughtful, and conflicted. He was ruminating over how the changing world conflicted with values embedded in his memories of childhood.
Let me suggest this: If you're such a rigid ideologue that you can't engage a person in an honest discussion about the evolution of cultural values in our society, then you're no better than the neoconservatives who have turned their backs on reality because they refuse to entertain anything that is not ideologically pure and which doesn't map with their mid-90s geopolitical paradigm.
If a person is willing to HONESTLY and calmly discuss anything, then rational people should be open to that discussion. Keillor isn't some right-wing politician pandering to the moron component of his base. He's somebody struggling between liberal values and traditions he celebrates even as he observes them from an ironic distance. He's trying to make sense of it all.
To impose summary judgment based on some liberal litmus test is... well, regardless of how the test is characterized it isn't a liberal way of doing things. It's the way THEY do things. They don't like to think. They're scared of complexity and nuance and ambiguity. You're for them or your against them. We're supposed to be different.
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 16, 2007 4:51 AM
"Yeah, shame on us! We think Keillor said mean things about atheists and homosexuals just because, uh.. he did. But, obviously, he couldn't have meant these things, because that wouldn't reflect well on him. We all know he isn't a bigot, so obviously his remarks are in no way bigoted."
Did none of you people take English Literature classes in college? Most of you write really well, so I would think you'd have some exposure...
Read the final paragraphs of the article. Remember that crazy, hippie English Lit teacher you had your freshman year? What would he have to say about those final paragraphs? You'd try to shake them off, but he wouldn't let you...
You dismiss the part of what he writes you don't understand because your passion for righteous outrage is satisfied. But Keillor didn't write this to satisfy nor provoke that pseudo-religious impulse. First sentence to last, it's a whole.
Posted by: Max Udargo | March 16, 2007 5:00 AM
I'm not Keillor's biggest fan, but I think you're being too hard on him here. This is his kind of humor targeting a mainstream mindset, and trying to move them a little toward the light.
This does end on a positive note. Unfortunately, for a majority of Americans, this is as much as can be expected for a while.
Posted by: 601 | March 16, 2007 7:45 AM
Did anyone happen to read through Shake's
link at all? Anyone?
Posted by: tess | March 16, 2007 8:01 AM
an appropriate Zimmerman for this entry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM
Posted by: Marcia | March 16, 2007 8:01 AM
Things are not what they seem!
Televangicals are nice, ethical people.
Bush is smart.
Global warming is an opportunity to build more houses inland.
Keillor is not a bigot.
Shove those rose-colored glasses back up your nose.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 16, 2007 8:27 AM
Posted by: David Livesay | March 16, 2007 9:40 AM
No, we get the whole 'speaking to a mainstream mindset', but it's still a big pile of steaming hate. A half serving of hate may suit some people better than the Bill Donohue All You Can Eat Buffet of Hate, but it's still hate.
Posted by: stogoe | March 16, 2007 9:42 AM
Yeah, anyone who doesn't like Keillor's remarks is 'no better than the neoconservatives' according to Max.
That's soooo true!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 16, 2007 10:00 AM
I grew up in the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities (like Garrison) and he is right about the way it used to be. It was a great place to grow up. And I assume, at his age, he's feeling very nostalgic about his childhoo