jack_ryder

Beware the Creeper!

Iain's life as a psychotic crimefighter


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
jack_ryder

(no subject)

You know,  I used to like Garrison Keillor - until now!


(here's the original piece Savage is complaining about - warning ad alert!)

  • 1
There's some argument as to how satirical that was. My take is that he was trying to be funny, but rusted-on prejudices got in the way. But then, I've never heard of the guy before today... no, wait.

An interview linked by some of the comments seemed familiar, where he says (US) Dems should tone down gay rights policies in favour of socialist economics (ie: helping the poor/middle class).

I'm not so sure he's anti-gay as much as clueless and uncomfortable with the topic.


I'm not so sure he's anti-gay as much as clueless and uncomfortable with the topic.


Which is not exactly pro-gay is it? (And I find it difficult to accept that someone like Keillor who has been in the entertainment industry for at least 20 years would be clueless about gays. That's a lot of ignorance to maintain for a long time.)

Oh wait, he's being funny by reinforcing gay stereotypes! How can that be anti-gay? (Which kind of reminds me of this week's Extras, which reminded me why I don't like it and Ricky Gervais in the first place.)

His piece angered me because it still seemed to be making the argument that gay marriage and het marriage are mutually exclusive - if you allow gay marriage that immediately devalues het marriage. It's het divorce that devalues het marriage - something Keillor should be intimately familiar with. I don't understand how you can take that position without exhibiting some kind of innate prejudice - it's like saying black people shouldn't marry, or left-handed people, or blue-eyed people.

I think we're in heated agreement here. I don't think it was pro-gay, whatever it's intent. And I too find Extras indigestible, and Ricky Gervais is insufferably smug.

He does say "well, we'll get used to gay marriage the way we got used to divorce and re-marriage"(paraphrased) which, while hardly a ringing for gay marriage (endorsement ought to be expected from a man in his position, true) it's not exactly condemnation from on high. "Damning with faint praise" is probably more like it.

The guy has a blind-spot in an area which is unfortunate in a modern left-wing pundit. But since I didn't know of him, it doesn't do a lot for me either way.

In better news, isn't fun to watch the Liberals' own-foot-shooting contest? "And another one down, And another one down, And another one bites the dust!" Little JoHo is clearly panicking!

In better news, isn't fun to watch the Liberals' own-foot-shooting contest? "And another one down, And another one down, And another one bites the dust!" Little JoHo is clearly panicking!

It was interesting to see Bolt immediately hose down any further investigation (or questions) about the Family Council of Queensland. So Santoro sells shares recommended to him by a far-right lobby group and "donates" the profits back to the lobby group and we're not supposed to look any closer? Bolt has the audacity to say that if the contribution was to Greenpeace people wouldn't complain? Not even if it was the Environment minister?

And reading (well, scanning) Michael Duffy's column in yesterday's SMH where he states that people are going to vote Labour in next weekend's state election because the Iemma government has tricked everyone into distancing themselves from Carr's government, right wing pundits must assume that people are stupid! Bolt and Duffy (and Devine and all the other wretched lot of them) obviously share the belief that if people are stupid enough to take them seriously, then they must be prepared to swallow all manner of crap. Which probably explains a lot about the Howard Government.

(and I'm sooo glad you're not a Gervais fan.)

It's interesting that you see Keillor as a left-wing pundit - he's mostly known as a radio broadcaster and story teller. It's only just recently that he's had more overt political content in his columns.

It was interesting to see Bolt immediately hose down any further investigation (or questions) about the Family Council of Queensland. So Santoro sells shares recommended to him by a far-right lobby group and "donates" the profits back to the lobby group and we're not supposed to look any closer? Bolt has the audacity to say that if the contribution was to Greenpeace people wouldn't complain? Not even if it was the Environment minister

I haven't seen this yet. Is there a link? And of course people would complain! The Lib's would be shouting it from the rooftops!

Hopefully people will vote against Debnam because of his promise to hand over state industrial relations to the Federal Govt. Hopefully they won't buy Debnam's lame-duck ploy, "I've already lost (so give me your protest votes)!" I can't think of any reason to vote for Iemma; but loads of reasons to vote against Debnam (religious right, lack of talent, lack of policies, basic rightwing philosophy... etc).

I loathed what Extras did with Patrick Stewart.

I never listen to radio.


I haven't seen this yet. Is there a link?


It was on the Insiders this morning, but they don't put up transcripts of the exchanges between the "journalists".

And, yeah, it's a weird election when people are voting against the opposition, rather than for/against the government.

(Deleted comment)
We did. Thanks.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account