Please tell me Garrison Keillor's Woebegone days will be gone soon.

Normally, I can't stand reading nettlesome and self-righteous blogs by swaggering writers who use the medium to display their disdain of everyone but themselves and to showcase their ability to successfully use condescending language and sarcasm to offend anyone who doesn't have the intellectual facility to read between the lines, with the exception of the ones I write, obviously. But as soon as I read Dan Savage's article in The Stranger about Garrison Keillor's hypocritical piece on marriage and family, I immediately signed onto gmail and sent the link to all my friends who would appreciate an article entitled, "Fuck Garrison Keillor"-- a title that eloquently introduces a classic laugh-your-ass-off article criticizing the ignorance and homophobia of white, wrinkly-faced autocrats who have no savoir faire, despite their Ivy League educations and blueblood breeding. Neither could I resist using Savage's article as a point of departure to amplify a well-established belief that Keillor is an absolute failure as the host of NPR's Writer's Almanac. Every morning I have to listen to that arrogant voice hiding behind the pantleg of white patriarchy read the shittiest, most uncreative, unoriginal, and pointless poems that have ever been written. The lack of any semblance of poetic language, imagery, or sense of rhythm in his reading choices speaks for Keillor's poor taste, both in his own attempt to write satire and in poetry (if you can call that crap prose chopped into lines Keillor spews over national radio waves poetry). Check out Savage's article and Keillor's apology letter:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/fuck_garrison_keillor
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/garrison_keillors_apology

In the fabulously succinct words of Dan Savage, "Oh. My. God." What the fuck was that, Keillor? Savage has every right to be unsatisfied and more enraged by Keillor's apology letter, which smacks of an attempt to save his career and his ass. I should know, since I've had to eat crow many times in my short career. But my main complaint about Keillor has less to do with his lack of sensitivity toward the gay community in a satire about marriage, though that does cause its share of outrage. What I can’t believe is that this is a piece written by seasoned writer who, by the close of his career as a well-known radio host (let’s hope it ends soon), should know the difference between delivering sarcasm to a live audience and writing satire for a larger crowd that mostly consists of people who neither understand nor appreciate sarcasm. Even I-a wet behind the ears, unpublished writer-have figured out at the tender age of 29 that you can't use highbrow humor to point out the ignorance behind all the isms that exist in our society, because, to put it bluntly, the people who need to hear it are, well, ignorant (in the original sense of the word, not the word as it is read now with centuries of pejorative baggage). In other words, Keillor, I know people back home in Alabama who would definitely nod their heads, and hum a rhythmically judgmental, "Mmmm Hmmmm," to every phrase of yours about how us gay folks are ruining the sanctity of marriage. So I must give a pre-apology for the freshman tone in my voice when I add my own, "Fuck you!" to this conversation.

How the hell did you think people would respond to your flimsy excuse in that letter? For instance: "The column was done tongue-in-cheek, always a risky thing, and was meant to be funny, another risky thing these days, and two sentences about gay people lit a fire in some readers and sent them racing to their computers to fire off some jagged e-mails. That’s okay. But the underlying cause of the trouble is rather simple"? Well, thank you Father Shithead for blessing us with your approval and the "okay" to race to our computers to "fire off some jagged emails." What the fuck did you expect when you yourself admitted, "My column spoke as we would speak in my small world and it was read by people in the larger world and thus the misunderstanding"? Do you think all those folks in Alabama are rushing off to their computers to google "tongue-in-cheek" so they can bone up on their cheeky lit. in the latest Iowa Review or Harper's Weekly to prepare themselves for your brilliant take on their prejudices? Puh-lease. Although you did follow that statement with, "And for that, I am sorry," you deftly destroy any sincerity it had with the next sentence, " Gay people who set out to be parents can be just as good parents as anybody else, and they know that, and so do I." Gee whiz, Mr. Keillor, you really think I am fit to be a mom? Golly, that's great news, and here I was worried about the fact that my lesbian partner and I actually have to plan out having children because, unlike some of our heterosexual counterparts, we can't pop out a rugrat every time we fuck. I didn't know how all those years of growth and maturity we will gain before we decide to have kids would allow us to trust those maternal instincts, or if our emotional stability would give us the sense not to have kids when we aren't ready for it. I thought all those lesbian moms turned kids bad. Is your letter part of the fucking joke, Keillor? If so, I don't hear many of us gay folks laughing. If your article has half the satirical genius as your letter seems to have, then you've written the next Gulliver's Travels. Hear that sound? It's Jonathon Swift rolling over in his cliche. Before I start to sound like Keillor because of my unbridled anger, let's move on.

I must include in my exegesis of Keillor's work, his presumptuous attitude about his gay chums, "Ever since I was in college, gay men and women have been friends, associates, heroes, adversaries, and in that small world, we talk openly and we kid each other and think nothing of it. But in the larger world, gayness is controversial. In almost every state, gay marriage would be voted down if put on a ballot. Gay men and women have been targeted by the right wing as a hot-button issue. And so gay people out in the larger world feel besieged to some degree." You think? I feel so grateful for having a privileged white male, whose small-world gay friends talk openly with him about their sexuality, speak for my feelings about my controversial gayness. Too bad none of them pointed out what a fucking dick slap you are. Don't fucking tell me what I might feel about being targeted by right wingers who use my civil liberties as a ticket to the white house, lining their silk pockets with donations along the way. Your condescending use of the phrase, "gay people out in the larger world feel besieged to some degree" is not only utterly offensive to all gay people, in the BIG or "small" world, but I must say it is also more ignorant than anything our fucking moron for a President could mispronounce on national television. At least Bush doesn't hide his bigotry behind pseudo-intellect; we are all perfectly aware the man is a fucking idiot. And, Rupert Murdoch, if you're reading this on MySpace, fuck you too! Before I end this miscellaneous section, I must respond to Keillor's most urbane reference to his relationships with those gay people (are you paying attention, Gari boy? the use of "urbane" is what we call "sarcasm," dickface). He claims that since he was a strapping college boy, "gay men and women have been friends, associates, heroes, adversariees, and in that small world, we talk openly and we kid each other and think nothing of it." Haven't we heard this before, perhaps in reference to an old ism that still exists in this country even though we pretend it doesn't: "I ain't racist. I've got lots of black friends. Why hell, just the other day one of them affectionately called me niggah." Again, FUCK YOU KEILLOR, and your fucking failed attempt to be gay-friendly! If you have to preface your non-homophobic attitude with, "Ever since college, gay men and women," then you're overcompensating for your insincerity.

To fully establish the bigger picture that Keillor's prickness represents, let's look at some of the equally asshole comments made about Savage's original article in the blog. As I was scrolling down, I noticed that #412 says, "hey #34. eat a dick," so I wondered what #34 could have possibly said to warrant such a request. Here's what #34 had to say about Savage's article: "I don't see what the problem is. These stereotypes are PROMOTED by the gay establishment. They are the people claiming to represent gay people. Go on a gay forum somewhere and try to challenge them that they're hurting gays by doing this (you know, the same thing you're doing to Garrison here) and they'll rip you to shreds for being a bigot." Hmmm. Well, yes, #34, because I AM GAY I suppose I do claim to represent myself, you fucking moron! I must say that I concur with #412, eat dick, arrogant bastard!! In fact, why don't you eat Keillor's dick, since you seem to be so fond of that particular cock. Moving on. Number 32 remarks, "I'm a little stunned at how few people seem to have a clue about what Keillor does. He's a satirist, people. Gentle and folksy, yes, but he's not idealizing the past, he's making fun of the idealized past. I think too much hip and edgy comedy has rotted your brains. This last bit is a bad failure, though." I think too much pot has eroded your capability to put together a coherent comment. Have you looked at a dictionary lately? Don't you think that "hip and edgy" is the fucking antithesis of this "idealized past" you and Gari boy seem to unidealistcally idealize? Take a few minutes with that last bit #32 before you consider the failure of your attempt to express an intellectual opinion. Here's a tip: get a proofreader before you post another comment on the internet. Let's see what #24 has to say. "Dan, didn't your kid pick out your "weird, little dog?" Um, what? What the fuck does that even mean twenty four? Use my tip for 32: proofreader. Number 147 seems to have an interesting take on all this: "His point seems to me that when anybody becomes a parent they need to defer their own interests to the interests of their children. While he may use the stereotype of the flamboyant gay man to make this point, he also basically says that all people need to get over themselves in order to be good parents. Apparently getting over themselves is too tall of an order for some." Grammar anyone? You want to tell me which Strunk and White guide you used to construct,"His point seems to me that," hm, 147? Using the stereotype of a flamboyant gay man is the fucking center of the issue, in case your homophobic craving for a flamboyant dick up your ass has obscured your ability to pay attention to the crux of Savage's entire argument. So, how about it numbnuts? Want to get over yourself? Or is that too tall of an order? Finally, number ten gives us a little hope with this comment: "Don't worry Dan, his fucked up hypocritical generation will be dying off soon. One by one, those asshat bigots of the Boomer Gen will either die of obesity related death, or become mentally incapable of rendering any more harm on society." Asshat, now that's more hip and edgy than a hipster at Goodwill. Let's hope ten's prophecy is fulfilled before we all die in a nookcleyour war.

Keillor only perpetuates the hatred toward all those goddamn gay people ruining our society and causing AIDS. See Garrison, my straight and narrow chum, satirizing gay people doesn't work unless YOU ARE GAY, so why don't you stick to those stale, casserole-eating Lutherans back home in Wisconsin, and that's not satire, just pure bitterness toward a heterosexual-driven society because elitists like you don't hand out smoking jackets to all the peeps outside your "small-world" glee club. If the kind of bullshit that Keillor pulls in his "satrire" about marriage doesn't piss you off to the living end, YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON OUTSIDE YOUR NARROW FRAMED DOORWAY! This society isn't going to hell in a hand basket because of gay people, (you, know since we've only been around for a few decades) we are going to hell because we are slowly allowing our government to turn us into a nation full of docile idiots. Want more proof? Take a look at the poem he read today on Writer's Almanac:

My Dream

Here is a dream.
It is my dream—
My own dream—
I dreamt it.
I dreamt that my hair was kempt,
Then I dreamt that my true love
unkempt it.

by, Ogden Nash

This is not a joke folks. This was the actual poem he read between BBC news and Fresh Air, or one of those other pansy NPR shows used to disguse the fact that NPR is now advertising for WAL-MART. Oh, yes, the bastion of liberal radio has buckled at the knees my friends. Do you realize the kind of shit disguised as artistic integrity that you are inundated with every day? And we wonder why we all hate each other. But I digress. On to the poem.

Where do I begin? How about that catchy, creative title? (the use of satire is at work here, so pay attention Keillor). Now, I may just have an MFA from one of the best programs in the country, but if I brought a poem like this into workshop, it wouldn't make it past that hallmark greeting, freezer-phrase title, "My Dream." If this is an attempt to honor the great William Carlos Williams and his Red Wheelbarrow, you have failed Mr. Nash. Failed, failed, failed. If you've written it to honor the Imagists, might I note you seem to have forgotten the staple of an Imagist poem and the center of the entire theory behind Imagist thought: the fucking image! If you want to be Keillor's protege by satirizing the Imagists, might I point out another folly of writing satirical poetry: untalented schlubs like you who write them. Before I continue with this brutally unconvincing poem, I want to say that I don't enjoy tearing down the work of another poet, if that work is genuine and will get published on its own merit and not just because Robert Bly invites the poet into his man club. No, I'm not kidding. Every summer, somewhere deep in the woods of Michigan, that equally untalented jackass Bly hosts a gathering just for men, the ones who are in his "man club," a club where men can be men. As if their heterosexual maleness ever stuck out like a gay man in chartreuse pants. Oh, I know, poor Robbie and all the other rich, white boys have been marginalized all their lives. Fuck you too, Robert! You and your cronies are fucking hacks and you know it! I can name a dozen unpublished poets who have more talent and dignity than your entire fucking club. Have you ever just thought about how ridiculous a "man club" sounds to normal people? But I digress. Back to the task at hand, ah yes, Nash's piece of shit poem. It would take two minutes in an MFA workshop to render this piece unrecognizable, and for good cause. If I included a poem like that in my thesis at Goddard, I don't think they would have given me a degree. I love the sad nod to tradition with the capital letter beginning each line, even if it is enjambed. Ooohhh, how 1940s of you Nash. If you are trying to play tennis with a net, better learn how to put the fucking thing up first. Even more offensive than the fact that this poem was chosen for Writer's Almanac in the first place, Keillor couldn't read it just once. No, no, he had to defame the name of poetry twice, so the people who can't tell the difference between art and shit can continue to live in blissful ignorance, while decent poets continue to remain bewildered by the constant decline in the crap that makes it to the bookshelves and into Kellior's spotlight. Check mate, old man. It is time for generation consumer to step aside.

Fuck this. I'm moving to France where John Kerry and I can have an intellectual conversation over our freedom fries. Anyone know a French lesbian willing to marry a penniless poet from America?

God bless blogs, the internet, and the advertising media. God bless us. God bless us, one and all. (Hey Keillor, if I change a few syllables around in that, would you read my poem and call it a brilliant haiku on the next Writer's Almanac?)