Mr. Keillor's stock-in-trade has always been bemused condescension and superiority. It permeates every second of his radio show, and this is just more of the same. Why a supposedly "liberal" publication like Salon puts up with him is beyond me. Oh wait, no it's not. It's because he's famous and therefore maybe a draw to the site (cf. the return of Camille). That he isn't actually a good writer or a thoughtful person isn't what matters.

I'm not sure which writers are more smug and asinine, Keillor, or the writers who condescendingly assure me that my taking offense at his column proves that I am a humorless liberal unable to understand satire. Yes, the column is supposed to be funny. Yes, Keillor is poking fun at the fact that his own life hasn't followed the "old monogamous system." I think this is territory he should stay away from, in the interest of simple good taste, but that's between himself and his wife and daughter. When he went off on gay parents, though, he wasn't being funny, he was being a homophobic ass. There are always jokes that decent people do not make. Nobody would be writing in to defend Keillor if he'd made racially bigoted remarks. So why is it acceptable to recycle weary old stereotypes of gay men?

I've just read with great dismay Garrison Keillor's article

"Stating the Obvious" at salon.com.

It's unbelievable that someone who evinces such intelligence, and literary

capacity would demonstrate a profound lack of respect for gay people by reducing

the entire group to a simplistic, hackneyed, cliched stereotype.

Did he consciously decide that it was acceptable to perpetuate the manner, means and dress of a gay male couple with children? Did he consider doing the same to the immigrant families he alludes to and decided that would be too offensive, but somehow gay people wouldn't be offended?

I have recently moved to London where things are oh so not politically correct. This is at best 1970's Archie Bunker humor. At worst bad timing, especially because of blood suckers like Ann Coulter and that 1000 year old dragon Camille Paglia. I'm gay, and I'm pretty sure every gay person I know realizes that there are NO gay people that we know that fit that description. But I said all this in my last post. Stop and breath for a second, and realize that Keillor is no Coulter or Paglia (which should now be unified like Brad and Angelina and forever be known Couglia).

Now mind you I have written some scathing letters about Couglia, and how offensive they are to a modern 2007 gay man such as myself. They write and speak to illicit those reactions, wouldn't you agree? Couglia is understood differently than taking a moment to laugh at ourselves and our viewpoints. I think Avenue Q illustrates this perfectly.

So, I was out looking for a new place to have dinner with a gay couple we just met, and I ran into this review. I hope the link works since its rather long - if it is, the go to www.timesonline.co.uk and search Bacchus and A A Gill yes two A's:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/a_a_gill/article647905.ece

It struck me how similar, well, how funny this restaurant review is. At the end, he does some heavy duty gay stereo-typing that probably could be taken badly, and I think was, though not by me. I didn't read all of the reader comments. But my point is that there is a difference between a little gentle ribbing and Couglia style attacks. Like there is a difference between finding someone attractive and cheating.

Please just chill out a little, and learn to laugh. As the y say on Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit Lacist!"

That lovely two-gendered marriage that my parents also enjoyed until death parted them. The one where everyone went tense when my dad arrived home, waiting to see if he would be in a rare good mood or a far more likely sour one, and scattering to far corners of the house if it was the latter. The fights my parents had about everything--the car, the house, the food, the kids, who we could date, who was coming over on Christmas, why did anyone have to come over on Christmas, we talked too much, we didn't talk enough, whether the sky was blue, etc. Me at 16, leaving the house to meet friends, my mom crying in the dining room because she had no friends. My dad telling us every new year's eve that they could go out "if it weren't for you kids."

Yes, the good old days. That fine two-gendered marriage. Til death do you part. I prayed every day that my parents would get a divorce. Never happened. Notice that Keillor himself got divorced, though. Twice.

Keillor is a satirist, and his discriptions about American life are verbal caricatures. If he were less literate and intelligent, I suppose he would have become a standup comedian, in which case nobody would be complaining.

Anyway--apparently reading comprehension seems to be a problem among the overeducated--the point of this story was the absurdity of all adult psychological crises, when, after all, kids are the only ones who suffer real crises. One should have understood that point of such a contrast was show how ridiculous the so-called existential crises of people of any age are.

In case you were too stupid to understand that, he follows with a discussion of the immigrant children children, all from poor countries--nationalities were "Somali, Ethiopian, Hmong, Hispanic"--"most of whom ventured into English only a year ago", and then concludes with the inanity of the idea that meeting a "real" writer during reading week is going to make any difference to these kids.

The reactions to this article seem to prove his point, that we are so self-absorbed and pretentious that supposing (and wasting money studying) that these high-fallutin' ideas (or posting responses on the Internet) have any real impact on people's lives, especially in light of the kids just getting the hang of the language and who can just get into the "clip-clops and whinnies". I suppose this is why every generation of kids hates their parents, because they are always full of crap.