68 Comments:
Wow. A blatant troll post. Nice work. Did you even understand the column?
»» Submitted by »»» s4xton at 11:16 AM on March 14
We need more poster like you, Dave. To go hang out at some other site.
"Let's all consider ourselves fortunate that we have someone of such virtue to tell us how best to lead our own lives."
»» Submitted by »»» g rote at 11:26 AM on March 14
davet, in fairness, this is a liberal-oriented site. Know your audience. You can do a post that vilifies, say, Senator Bachman, or Bush, or a known conservative writer, with the point of the post being, simply, vilification as art form, and it will be "fair comment, because, hey!, it's all true." But to do this to Garry . . . here . . . ain't gonna fly.
Not entirely fair, or intellectually honest, but there are lots of conservative-oriented web sites out there that make the same distinctions, backwards, and which will shower you with praise.
.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 11:26 AM on March 14
This isn't a liberal vs conservative argument. It's more about how the headline and blurb that davet wrote doesn't match the article it links to. Part of it is even fabricated. When it's negative on top of that, it's just trolling.
So, how did this get to the front page?
a) Rubber-stamp editorial staff at MNspeak.
b) Controversial trolling creates shitloads of comments, page views and ad click-throughs.
c) Something else?
»» Submitted by »»» s4xton at 11:33 AM on March 14
in fairness, this is a liberal-oriented site.
I would disagree with that statement. There are liberals here for sure, but there are plenty of conservatives as well.
Be that as it may, the article was mostly about how it used to be compared to how it is now. That and that the government likes to waste money. I think Dave T missed that part about the article though...
Yeah, this is a liberal site. It plainly says so, right in the whiny conservative bullshit FAQs to the right.
It was an obnoxiously slanted post, bobby. But, you know, since the monogamy police has reared its ugly head, hopefully they'll be prepared to make identical comments when the Republican party runs its own adulterers under the banner of family values.
Being too lazy and too uninterested to click the link to the Salon article, I did find this post to be funny. So if we simply ignore the facts and enjoy the comedy: everything's all good!
OK, now I did click, and I'm way too uninterested to click to get the free Salon pass. So nevermind.
It's not a great piece. But it's not greatness it totally unrelated to Keillor's marital history, and has more to do with the facts the he sounds like he forgot his meds and just started babbling.
have you seen Keillor's red socks? he wears those and expects to be taken seriously?
»» Submitted by »»» g rote at 11:44 AM on March 14
Why do you even have a review and registration process if you are going to let mostly anonymous people post threads immediately after registering?
Let's hope this Dave Tomas is not:
Dave Tomas - Fridley, MN - High School Teacher @ Columbia Heights High School - graduated from college - engaged to Traci Erickson, wedding set for March.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:48 AM on March 14
Definitely not a great piece. It started off well, but then it got off track and started rambling off into space.
Interesting that the title of the post was changed.
Summary of the article for those who don't want the Salon day pass:
"Nature doesn't care about the emotional well-being of older people. It's about the continuation of the species -- in other words, children."
He mentions a US Department of Education $750K study that shows that art is good for school children. He jokes he could tell them that for much less.
Garrison grew up a child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death and he will attest that that's a good thing for children. It used to be the standard arrangement: everyone had a traditional family. Monogamy put parents in the background where they belong and allowed children to be the focus. "Nature's about continuing the species -- in other words, Children." He then goes into "hyphenated relatives" and stereotypes of gay men.
Last week Garrison visited a grade school and he writes about the diversity and multiculturalism he saw and compared to how he grew up. He told a story to them as part of "I Love Reading Week" and argued that the children are better for having met him. He jokes, "Pay me a quarter-million dollars and I'll do a study that proves it."
»» Submitted by »»» s4xton at 11:52 AM on March 14
"Controversial trolling creates shitloads of comments, page views and ad click-throughs."
The underlying assumption being that this site makes money for someone? Strangely, that hadn't even occurred to me. (And, NTTAWWT. Good for them if it does.)
I think it is an L v C issue, in that I've seen postings as meritless as this one but aimed the other direction that received none of the instant troll-rating commentary. Casual comments vilifying one side of the poli-continuum are accepted as being as natural as breathing, while one thrown in from the other side is often labelled trollbait.
This isn't bad or unjust - The site IS dominated overwhelmingly by people closer to one side of the continuum than the other, so it's all understandable, and in fact there's nothing wrong with it being that way - sites like this have owners, and editors, and the communities formed over time generally tend toward some homogeneity, and I was just pointing that out to davet.
Of course, the more I think about it, it's not a secret, so maybe davet IS the guy in the bar who walks up to the biggest drunk and points to another drunk and says "are you gonna let him call you what he just called you?" and then ducks.
.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 11:38 AM on March 14
"Yeah, this is a liberal site. It plainly says so, right in the whiny conservative bullshit FAQs to the right."
Look, I'm not trying to say something derogatory here, and I'm not claiming that a site shouldn't have a POV or a community consensus. It's a fun and intelligent site, the discourse is generally well above the standard web-site discourse, and commenters generally do a good job of justifying and supporting their statements. But are you really saying with your comment that the site and it's commenters don't tend toward one side of the continuum?
.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 11:56 AM on March 14
The Anti-Keillor sentiment was better when Rex was here...
So, an ad hominem attack on a complete misrepresentation of an article written by someone who has slight leftward tendencies is a conservative viewpoint. Interesting...
Let's hope this Dave Tomas is not:
Dave Tomas - Fridley, MN - High School Teacher @ Columbia Heights High School
Wow, a public school teacher who's not a flaming lefty. Hope he gets hazardous duty pay for all the incoming I'm sure he's subjected to. Or maybe he just stays in the closet like most conservative government workers do.
»» Submitted by maz at 12:06 PM on March 14
Maz-
I hope he's not a public educator because he can't read and understand English. The article had nothing to do with him telling people how to lead their lives and he doesn't really touch on moralism either. It's about focusing on children.
»» Submitted by »»» s4xton at 12:10 PM on March 14
Ah. More trolling from Dances With Lesbians.
"So, an ad hominem attack on a complete misrepresentation of an article written by someone who has slight leftward tendencies is a conservative viewpoint. Interesting..."
D, the fact that you can type "slight leftward tendencies" about Keillor shows the perception issue here. Everyone sees themselves as being at the center.
And an anti-Garry diatribe is generally launched from a rightward POV. Even a bad diatribe.
But I'll stop now, because the poli-stuff is a fairly nonrewarding path for all.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 12:16 PM on March 14
But I'll stop now, because the poli-stuff is a fairly nonrewarding path for all.
Ditto. The reason I used "slight leftward tendencies" is because:
a) I don't know a lot about his politics, but he does agree with some conservative viewpoints AND some liberal ones.
b) He has issues with the current president. (There's a shocker!)
wow, I suprised anyone cares that someone is taking a poke at Garrison Keillor. I'm sure he can take care of himself anyway; prolly already issued a cease and desist order to dave.
in other news, anyone need an extra ticket to TV on the Radio's Thursday show?
»» Submitted by »»» spaceman at 12:25 PM on March 14
Wow, a public school teacher who's not a flaming lefty
I think it's sad, too that so few conservatives consider teaching kids a worthy profession.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 12:33 PM on March 14
bobby_b.
a plea to you.
.
enough.
.
with the.
.
fucking.
.
dots.
.
»» Submitted by Dotty at 12:42 PM on March 14
I love political gossip more than anyone I know, and have not heard that Keillor cheated on his wife (or wives). Norm, well, that's a different story.
Also, Keillor went to rehab to stop being a drunken bastard before rehab was cool.
»» Submitted by yepnope at 12:44 PM on March 14
For you, Dotty, anything.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 12:46 PM on March 14
"I love political gossip more than anyone I know, and have not heard that Keillor cheated on his wife (or wives). Norm, well, that's a different story."
Norm didn't write stories about Garry. Garry wrote stories about Norm.
(And Garry didn't actually say Norm cheated. Garry had neither the facts nor the guts. He just used some of the most vile innuendo and crappy rumor-mongering ever to make it into a major publication in order to trash some people whose politics he hates. So, I'm conflicted, as I've loved PHC for decades, and I despise GK.)
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 12:49 PM on March 14
That article about Norm was bizarre, and I would never defend it. But I had heard much more salacious versions of that rumor for years before the article came out. No idea if any of it's true, but it was out there.
»» Submitted by yepnope at 1:08 PM on March 14
I know several married couples whose marriages have really been over for years, by agreement even, but who (correctly or not - I don't know) believed the conventional wisdom that, as long as there's no outright hostility and the parents can still be friends, the kids are much, much better off if the people stay married. Some of those people (again, by agreement) seek things outside of the dead marriage that marriage usually provides, knowing that, in the circumstances, there's nothing dishonorable or dishonest about it.
But to Keiller, none of that matters - it's all just a great opportunity to smear.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 1:14 PM on March 14
I think if someone runs on the "Family Values" ticket and then is exposed as a Hypocrite and a Fraud - like Norm has been- then any "smearing" they get is well earned.
Neocons call it "smearing" when the facts are against them.
When they have "dirt" on the other guy suddenly it is all about "the rule of law."
»» Submitted by Raindog66 at 1:31 PM on March 14
I don't remember Norm running on any "family values" ticket. That's a convenient myth. Seems to me he ran on pro-freedom, pro-national defense "ticket." Kicked his liberal opponent's ass doing it too. But like I've said here before, Norm's natural tendencies are to side with the democrats in an argument and he's no hero of the conservative movement. He got most of his votes from grateful minnesota hockey fans.
»» Submitted by maz at 1:41 PM on March 14
"I think if someone runs on the "Family Values" ticket and then is exposed as a Hypocrite and a Fraud - like Norm has been"
Man, you need to get out more. Norm's pretty much on your side. He was one of the five or so senators working against Bush just a few weeks ago. We're looking for a Republican to run against him next time.
And, BTW, sacrificing your own interests in order to make your kids' lives better is immoral and fraudulent in your eyes? Careful what yoiu wish for, rd.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 1:48 PM on March 14
So, maz, if Norm wasn't working any family-values line, why did he fly Laurie in from her home in L.A., where she lives full-time, to appear in cozy, soft-focus "we're such a close family" TV ads during the 2002 campaign? heh.
»» Submitted by watson at 1:52 PM on March 14
I heard a rumor, as of yet unsubstantiated, that Keillor and Coleman have a little love nest condo that they share in downtown St. Paul. The public hate is just a front.
»» Submitted by »»» g rote at 2:02 PM on March 14
Maz-
Ever the revisionist historian:
Kicked his liberal opponent's ass doing it too.
Wellstone would have kicked Norm's ass if he hadn't been ASSASSINATED.
Here's proof you are incorrect about Norm's family values ties:
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL AWARDS COLEMAN TRUE BLUE AWARD
Who's the Family Research Council you ask?
FRCs Principal Issues:
-Since the early 1990s, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing traditional family values by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school vouchers, abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.
-FRCs objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of Americas domestic and foreign policy.
-FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to disestablish the Department of Education.
How's that for UNCONVENIENT TRUTHS Maz?
»» Submitted by Raindog66 at 2:41 PM on March 14
If anything the article had a conservative bent.
It was a humor piece.
Opened and closed with the premise of government spending funds to reach "obvious" conclusions.
Worth a few mild chuckles. Garrison is capable of better, but this was ok.
»» Submitted by rick at 2:52 PM on March 14
I think what's most dangerous idea re: the sites contributors slant/makeup as conservative vs republican is making assumptions and taking seriously, comments that seem to expose the motivations of anyone. Making the assumption just makes you look like a fool.
It's the internet; even if I were being sarcastic/satirical, a post's tone cannot be easily decerned, especially by bleeding-heart baby-killing gaywads. Or is it hypocritical, facist, brown-baby killers?
»» Submitted by David Foureyes at 3:02 PM on March 14
You can still espouse for things that didn't neccessarily work out for you personally.
That's what great about America!
(Also, ranty is great).
»» Submitted by bud jr at 3:25 PM on March 14
"You can still espouse for things that didn't neccessarily work out for you personally."
bud jr
If only that's what you and your neo-puritan ilk busied yourselves with in American life, "espousing for" families. But instead, despite serial failures at marriage, you and your sanctimonious peers invest your dark energy inveighing against others who've come up no less short than yourselves, or endeavoring to pass amendments to the state and U.S. constitutions, not to expand or codify citizen rights, but to single out and proscribe certain groups out of rights shared by their fellow citizens, forcing them to cobble together workable lapproximations of family, only to be demonized by you and your like for even that.
That's what is making America less and less great drip by venomous drip.
»» Submitted by LJkokonutz at 4:12 PM on March 14
neo-puritan ilk ?
Ha ha. That's not the bud jr. I know. heh.
»» Submitted by maz at 4:23 PM on March 14
Get Kokonutz started on the Vice of Smoking, and he'll sound every bit the neo-puritan he despises.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 4:56 PM on March 14
What a classy drive-by screed, davet. You must know something more about decency than the rest of us.
»» Submitted by EKM at 5:59 PM on March 14
Dan Savage has an interesting take on this:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/
Scroll down a little and stop when you see "Fuck Garrison Keillor".
»» Submitted by Woebegon at 6:32 PM on March 14
Apparently, kokonuts is a big gay homo.
»» Submitted by bud jr at 7:57 PM on March 14
"Dan Savage has an interesting take on this:"
I think Savage kind of misinterpreted what GK was meaning (or trying) to say in the piece, and it's clear most of his commenters really know nothing about GK or his true political leanings, but still, I enjoy finding instances on the web where many people are actively and passionately reviling Keillor. Cognitive dissonance of the "anti-Keillor Dan Savage" aside, I can just sit back and enjoy.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 7:51 PM on March 14
Vermin: Smoking's not a vice but an ungovernable physical addiction to nicotine. If the nic addicts can find a way to get it to their brains without involving my lungs, fine by me. As I've already written, it's their drug delivery system I have a problem with, not their deliberately cultivated addiction. You're free to be as stupid as you care to be and ignore all the warnings and research on the downside to nic addiction. Just leave everybody else out of it. Up to speed?
»» Submitted by LJKokonutz at 8:22 PM on March 14
In Shakespeare's day, you would have shut down the theaters.
You're the same people. Kokonutz.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 10:01 PM on March 14
I hope msbarber will be so open minded about adultry when he finds out I've been riding his wife!
»» Submitted by Mrsbarber's_pole at 10:05 PM on March 14
His "wife" is a wooden puppet.
FYI.
»» Submitted by bud jr at 10:19 PM on March 14
"That editorial in the Wall Street Journal about President Clinton being involved in drug running in Arkansas was bizarre, and I would never defend it. But I had heard much more salacious versions of that rumor for years before the editorial came out. No idea if any of it's true, but it was out there."
Not to further the lefty-righty argument more, but isn't it neat how that works for both sides?
Oh, and this is completely, 100 percent a "lefty" site ... except when we're discussing what chain restaurants we'd love to see open in the area.
»» Submitted by »»» pr9000 at 10:30 PM on March 14
So close but yet so far.
So far we have:
Maz & Bud Jr frothing from the right and hurling ephithets
Raindog frothing from the left and accusing someone of murder
S4xton taking a shot at the Bartel Cartel
Kokonutz bringing some literacy to the discussion
The obligatory "...was better when Rex was here" cliche
Max bringing the obvious to the forefront (and bonus points for the Dances With Lesbians bit -- we expect more of that now that you're an award-winning journalist)
The obligatory mention of the cease & decist letter
We still need:
Dizzy calling Rep. Ellison a terrorist
A butt sex allusion involving Alexis
A conspiracy theory involving Powerline
Hating on the Strib
Mention of the #5 bus line
And of course, a picture of Admiral Ackbar. Oops, wrong site. My bad.
»» Submitted by »»» zenrhino at 12:53 AM on March 14
What's curious, of course, is why my measured tutorials on conservative principles are considered "frothing" and "crazy," while the profanity-laced insults that they generate are not. Oh well.
»» Submitted by maz at 8:31 AM on March 15
Fuck off, loony!
heh
»» Submitted by maz at 8:58 AM on March 15
while the profanity-laced insults that they generate are not. Oh well.
Oh I'm fairly certain most think that Raindog is more frothy and crazy that even you Maz.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 9:00 AM on March 15
But we also find raindog to be adorable.
Well Raindog is more like the funny kid with Tourettes than anything to be taken seriously. She just needs a pat on the head and a popsicle and a timeout.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 9:31 AM on March 15
Vermin: Am I to understand that by your own private logic you're conflating a filthy, disease-causing drug delivery system that nic addicts use to fix in public places and artistic expression? To oppose smoking in my midst is to commit artistic censorship? This wandering line of faux reasoning is even more incohate than Keillor's dashed off column that sparked this thread. Pull yourself together and make some sort of a real effort.
»» Submitted by LJKokonutz at 10:02 AM on March 15
I didn't read any of this but GK is a creepy old man and I kind of hate him.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:10 AM on March 15
Rat: In Shakespeare's day, people thought nothing of defecating most anywhere that peristalsis overcame their alimentary canal. But when it was found that the "plague" of the era, cholera, was related to poor sanitation, new social norms informed by the greater good of public health were enforced in the form of many of the sanitary measures we take for granted today. I'm not aware, though, that there were any concommitant calls for the closing of theatres. Though it might've become more pleasant to have sat among the groundlings.
»» Submitted by LJKokonutz at 2:15 PM on March 15
I was going to comment on this thread earlier, but didn't have time. (SXSW will ruin you!) However, I just noticed that Dan Savage (of Seattle's The Stranger) just wrote a tirade similar to this post about Keillor's column too.
s4xton: you know I think you're usually on target, and maybe the initial post could have been phrase less flame-like, but I do really think there's something going on here with hypocrisy. (Of course, people are going to think I'm predisposed to say this for non-political reasons, but I'll try to say this as convincingly as possible: I'd feel this way regardless of that stupid t-shirt thing. I think Keillor is a windbag, regardless.)
»» Submitted by »»» rex at 6:21 PM on March 15
I don't see how GK's column being "for the children" makes his "nuclear families are best" statement any less offensive or hypocritical.
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 10:26 AM on March 16
I think Dan Savage is exactly right about this paragraph:
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.
It really takes somebody who doesn't know a single gay parent to come up with that.
In all fairness, I've never met a gay parent -- or person, now that I thin k about it -- who wasn't wearing chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts.
Waitasecond? What?
Apparently I wasn't the only one who "misinterpreted" GK's column. He has issued an apology.
I initially refrained from responding to the comments here, primarily because of the incredibly reactionary flames it generated right off the bat. I will grant that the original post should have been phrased differently. But wow -- it's amazing how quickly people rush to judgement.
What's even more amazing is how they jump to exactly the wrong conclusion -- making the assumption that I was posting from some politically conservative anti-Keillor position.
Trust me -- I'm definitely anti-Keillor, but my reasons have nothing to do with politics. Or t-shirts.
(Oh and PS: I'm not a teacher from Fridley. THAT was funny.)
»» Submitted by »»» DaveT at 6:10 PM on March 19
MNSpeak was better when GK was suing it.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:33 AM on March 20
Blotter item quotes Keillor saying it was "tongue in cheek."
Tongue in cheek, eh?
So unusual sexual practices are fine by GK, so long as they are practiced by heterosexual couples? Typical.
»» Submitted by Longfeller at 2:59 PM on March 21
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
|
|
|
