Thursday, December 17, 2009

The usual UU excuses for listening to Garrison Keillor

For years I've been saying that Garrison Keillor sucks and we shouldn't listen to him. I now expand that to say we shouldn't read him either.

The factual issues in his recent piece Don't Mess with Christmas speak for themselves. I'm sure plenty of other UU bloggers with better religious educations will cover them better that I could. And there are bloggers far more suited than I am to deconstruct Keillor's comments about Jewish guys and how their music makes the shopping mall impure. (What the fuck?)

When he misunderstands Emerson's comment "To be great is to be misunderstood," it's hard to take it as a compliment to Emerson. Mostly, it just makes me think that Keillor's a dumbass.

Let's review the usual UU excuses for listening to this clown:

He likes us! He says UU women are sexy
I'm pretty sure he means "UUs will do the freaky stuff the Lutheran girls won't."

But he's FUNNY
You mean when he parodies songs? Because he sure can't take it when people parody him, or change the words to Christmas carols he likes.

The piece in Salon was satirical. He doesn't MEAN it...
Have you read the piece? It was not satirical in tone at all and pretty much no one has taken it that way.

He uses gentle satire to make fun of self-important people.
Not really. He trades on his ignorant hominess the way Ann Coulter trades on her sharp-tongued conservatism, and I don't think the effects are any better. You may smile and laugh along, but keep in mind when Garrison says bigoted things like:"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," or "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," everyone else is still laughing.

And that's not funny. Even if he apologizes and claims that all his friends are Unitarians and Jews and he didn't realize that outside of Hollywood, Unitarians and Jews are given a rough time (which is what he said about gay people), I won't believe it and you shouldn't either.

At heart he's a liberal...he's just being funny.
No, he's a man who writes "I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them, and I could tell you about how good that is for children, and you could pay me whatever you think it's worth." in a column that trashes "serial monogamy"

Meanwhile, he's had three wives himself. He's just a plain old hypocrite in the exact mold of conservatives who blather on about defending marriage without addressing which of their multiple marriages they wish to defend. And I don't mind hypocrites when they actally have something to say. He doesn't.

I've heard much more bigoted humor. Keillor's is pretty mild.
I got this excuse multiple times last time I wrote about him and I don't understand it in light of having examined Keillor's actual words. Ignore the folksy "I'm kidding" tone and look at what Keillor actually says. It is NOT Wanda-Sykes-style "Black people drive like this, white people drive like that" cultural observation. He is straight up saying gay people shouldn't be parents because the sort of monogamy he can't handle himself is better for kids and that UUs shouldn't be allowed to celebrate Christmas our own way becase his way is better. That is not funny. Don't let the homey tone fool you. The underlying messages are nasty stuff and a LOT of people are nodding along.

Quit nodding.

Quit listening.

Quit reading.



Lilylou said...

Way to go, CC! Good work.

Kari said...


Bill Baar said...

Michael Feldman's Whatta ya know much better show.

hsofia said...

When I first became UU, other UUs talked about him so much that I listened to his show on the radio a few times, and even picked up one of his used books ($). I'm probably not his intended audience, but I just didn't find him to be funny.

But at least you break down why he's worse than not funny.

Joel Monka said...

I agree with everything you say about Garrison, and stopped listening to him myself about ten years ago. However... even a dick can have a point, or a piece of one, anyway. he's partially right, for the wrong reason.

It drives me up a wall when people bowdlerize hymns; I've written about this a number of times myself. It has nothing to do with Christianity or theology, and a lot to do with messing with someone's legacy and immortality. To me, it's like those people who publish versions of Huckleberry Finn with the "N word" and referrences to slavery removed. Don't tell me our sensibilities are more important than history or the only part of a person that we know for a fact lives on after them, their creations. The same goes for hymns.

You don't have to believe in the words to honor the music, the composer, and what it has meant to people over the years. This applies to the every Sunday hymns as well as the Christmas carols. Sing them as written or not at all, unless your name is Weird Al Yankovich.

Chalicechick said...

I can't go with that since there have been some pretty awesome hymns that got that way because they were altered. "What Child is this?" and "Lord of the Dance" seem like particularly obvious examples, and ones Keillor leaves alone since the rewriting was done by Christians.

As a kid who liked to visit my friends' churches. I remember being confused at all the different versions of the "Apostle's Creed" that different churches used. (Was God the Creator or the Maker? Did Jesus descend into Hell or do we leave that line out? Do we believe in the holy catholic or the holy Christian church? Does he judge the living and the dead or the quick and the dead? etc, etc,)

For the record, in my church it was "maker," "descended into hell", "catholic" and "quick."

Anyway it seems like Bowdlerization is only really a problem when non-Christians do it.


DairyStateDad said...

Well, I just like the show, most of the time. (Some parts more than others, of course.) There's no accounting for tastes, I guess...:-)

And I really did read the gay marriage column as satirical, although beyond that assertion I'm not inclined to argue the point further.

But (as I've already noted elsewhere) I'm in complete agreement w/ the criticism of the Christmas column...

Chalicechick said...

Well, here's Dan Savage's response to Keillor's apology:

"Was Dan Savage satisfied with the apology? “Sure. [But] does it mean the column he wrote wasn’t bigoted and offensive? No.”

“He claims the column was ‘misunderstood,’ and that it was meant to be satirical,” Savage said in an interview. “But satirical of what exactly? And is there another way to understand the column? [Keillor says] gay men—the swishy ones, at least—have been accepted ... but if we’re going to be accepted as parents we need to give up our loud trousers and flashy shirts? Excuse me, but what?

“Also, his column pines ... for the days when life was simpler—when people stayed married for life, and when kids were in the foreground, and, clearly, when they didn’t have to keep track of their gay relatives’ currents, exes, etcetera. He is pining for the days when, if you had a ‘confirmed bachelor’ in the family, he wasn’t so rude as to bring his ‘roommate’ around.

“The emotional violence that is/was the closet—and the old order, one that required gay people to commit to social and emotional death or risk losing everything—is nothing anyone should pine for,” Savage said. “And, yeah, I’m sure Keillor knows lots of homos. ... That makes his column less excusable, not more.”


a longtime enemy of the "Didn't life used to be great when we didn't actually have to think about gay people, black people and women and what they wanted, we could just assign them to the roles we wanted to give them?" point of view.

Heather said...

Thank you, CC! I've always thought that I "should" like GK...because he's on NPR...because his background, like mine, is with the Plymouth Brethren. But the truth is, I've always found him kind of annoying.

Heather said...

A little digging shows GK has a new Christmas book out this year. My cynical self suspects an attempt to stir up publicity.

Obijuan said...

On the subject of publicity (i.e. there is no bad), one could look at GK's sniping at UUs as the best ad campaign we never have to pay for. Perhaps we could capitalize on this by being an on-air sponsor of our local NPR outlets. "Unitarian Universalism: come for the bowdlerization, stay for the visitor alienation!"

Cynthia L. Landrum said...

Amen. No more listening.

PG said...

When he misunderstands Emerson's comment "To be great is to be misunderstood," it's hard to take it as a compliment to Emerson. Mostly, it just makes me think that Keillor's a dumbass.

I am not sure that he is misunderstanding it so much as he is pointing out how other people do. Certainly if you google the phrase, there's rather a lot of people talking about how misunderstood they feel and how it sucks, not about Emerson's point (it's not so bad to be misunderstood). Out of Emerson's context, it does sound like self-pity rather than a call to be gutsy.

Stephanie said...

I'm so n-o-t into him.

ogre said...

Perhaps Garrison would like to make an ad for the War on Christmas warriors to delight in, while he's at it.

It is, after all, their season, and no one else is to observe or celebrate (anything) at this time. May he find a few early Puritans under his tree, ready to correct his views.

kimc said...

This makes me glad I've never paid any attention to him.
Thanks, CC, for upholding Truth here.
As my friend says, for some people, "hypocrisy is a core value."

Anonymous said...

Really?!? GK is above all, a comedian. He's not serious. Are we as UU's off limits when it comes to social satire? He certainly makes fun of Lutherans more than any other group on PHC. The Salon piece may be offensive to some of us, but that doesn't mean we should give it any weight or importance. I'm a little disturbed by the lack of humor around here. In a piece like this, he is actually making fun of the point of view he espouses. He's saying, if you don't believe in Jesus, that's fine, just don't mess with my hymn! (See, its funny! A Christian should care that we don't believe in Jesus, not that we rewrote a song.) I do believe he has deep affection for UU's. Wondering where all the animosity is coming from on our end.

Also, if there was any serious point to the piece, its that Larry Summers is a tool. Which he is.

PG said...

"It is, after all, their season, and no one else is to observe or celebrate (anything) at this time. May he find a few early Puritans under his tree, ready to correct his views."

Except that's exactly what he did NOT say.

Celebrate Yule instead or dance around in druid robes for the solstice. Go light a big log, go wassailing and falalaing until you fall down, eat figgy pudding until you puke, but don't mess with the Messiah.

I'm pretty particular about the fact that I do not celebrate any religious aspect to Christmas, only the purely secular, materialistic, commercial side. (Ditto Easter.)

It's not unreasonable for someone who believes in Religion X to say to those who actually don't: Er, could you stop appropriating bits of our religion for your convenience?

For example, I would find it very offensive for non-Hindus in business to purport to be celebrating Diwali by picking it as a good date for starting the fiscal year. OTOH, I don't expect to get Hindu holidays off from work, nor do I get offended and write letters to my Congressman or Bill O'Reilly if I think the president has given insufficient attention to Hindu holidays. So I'm in a different position from the type of Christians who tend to get het up about the "reason for the season." They want it both ways: for Christmas to be a national holiday for a country of diverse faiths, but for Christmas also to remain a religious holiday.

In that context, Keillor isn't so bad. He's not saying there shouldn't be secular/ non-Christian celebrations at this time of year; he's just saying that they are not about the birth of baby Jesus and shouldn't pretend to be. I'm totally happy to come up with a new name for what the rest of us are doing with chestnuts and Jack Frost and Jingle Bells, while Keillor has Christmas to himself. I'm fond of "Festivus" as an alternative.

PG said...

I wonder if Keillor has anything to do with this guy's show...

hsofia said...

PG - I've heard of Wintermas as a possibility. It was proposed by a Christian blogger.

Anonymous said...

I must admit... until this piece, I thought he was mostly funny in discussing UUs. But I don't think I can ever listen to him again.

Cynthia L. Landrum said...

I just went back and read your post again, Chalicechick, and it just gets better. I had missed the Garrison Keillor rant about marriage, and skimmed over it in your post, but now went back and read his words. If I wasn't done with him before, that would do it. And, no, I don't think he's a liberal. He's a conservative who has somehow made his living poking fun at liberals and getting them to pay him for it.

BBJ said...

Thanks! As a Jew who reacted to that bizarre attack on Irving Berlin with anger and hurt, it's nice to see someone take this on with humor and clear sight.

Love this blog, BTW!

PG said...

Merry Wintermas!

I'm also fond of "Boxing Day." The British (who have an actual state religion, the Church of England aka Anglican church) sensibly made the day after the alleged birth of the Messiah a secular holiday unembarrassedly focused on giving people stuff -- though in a high-minded vein, it was originally about giving boxes of food and goods to service people and the needy. We can repurpose it for America's more democratic traditions by making it the term for all the secular aspects of Xmas.

John A Arkansawyer said...

So who listened to last night's show, curious to hear his response?

He made two, in my book:

The verse of "Silent Night" in German, right at the start of the show, and the "Tales of the Cowboys" featuring the Unitarian preacher and his two sidekicks with their stupid rewrite of a hymn (I've forgotten which one) who repeatedly sit on whoopie cushions.

I say he made it clear last night whether or not he was serious.

And I'm agreeing with Bill Baar again this year (!)--Michael Feldman's "Whad'ya Know" is a better show.

He once had a few words to say about Keillor:

"Animal Farm was a political satire. 'A Modest Proposal,' was a political satire. What Garrison has written is a parody. Look it up. And why do we call him by his first name, anyway? What is he, 'Saddam'?"

It's better in context.

PG said...

Feldman's citation of Animal Farm and A Modest Proposal as real political satire (as opposed to, say, The Onion, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report) reminds me of one of my favorite parts of Breakfast at Tiffany's:

"[Your story] doesn't mean anything."

My hand, smoothing oil on her skin, seemed to have a temper of its own: it yearned to raise itself and come down on her buttocks. "Give me an example," I said quietly. "Of something that means something. In your opinion."

"Wuthering Heights," she said, without hesitation.

The urge in my hand was growing beyond control. "But that's unreasonable. You're talking about a work of genius."

"It was, wasn't it? My wild sweet Cathy. God, I cried buckets. I saw it ten times."

I said, "Oh" with recognizable relief, "oh" with a shameful, rising inflection, "the movie."

Her muscles hardened, the touch of her was like stone warmed by the sun. "Everybody has to feel superior to somebody," she said. "But it's customary to present a little proof before you take the privilege."

Tabitha said...

Hey, CC: quit telling me what to do. I'm a UU because I don't like others telling me what to think or how to behave. Even other UUs! State your opinion and let us decide if we'll stop listening and reading.

I would suggest Keillor fans, rather than boycott him for expressing a difference of opinion, flood him with letters letting him know why you feel he is wrong.

And it is entirely possible that some UUs just might agree with him on this one. After all, UUs allegedly respect a diversity of beliefs.

Chalicechick said...

Hey Desdemona,

Liberal religion doesn't mean I can't try to tell you not to plead for the approval of someone who clearly has so little respect for us.

It does mean you don't have to listen.


Steve Caldwell said...

CC - if you haven't noticied, Gini Courter noticed your blog article about Keillor.

She was going to write a response but figured you had done it for her:

And that's a pretty cool compliment to get.

Robin Edgar said...

I am being very Green here by recycling this comment that I just left on Rev. Cyn's blog -

Interestingly enough U*Us. . . A free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of Garrison Keillor's appparent anti-U*U "rant" reveals that Garrison Keillor himself told U*Us that he was not a "companion" to U*Us seberal years ago. Check out these quite "prophetic" words of Garrison Keillor that were posted to UU World magazine editor Chris Walton's now rather defU*Unct Philocrites blog on Thor's Day, October 2, 2003 -

"Beneath this cool tolerant exterior beats the heart of an old *reactionary* and *pulpit-pounder* and if you ever put me in front of Unitarians with a microphone, I'd be hollering about man's inherent sinfulness and unworthiness and singing "Are You Washed In the Blood". I'd be roaming the aisles, *poking* people, baying like a dog. It wouldn't be a pretty sight."

So maybe U*Us should have taken *those* words of Garrison Keillor seriously way back when. . .

WVC = proll as in proletarian troll perhaps :-)

Chalicechick said...

Agreeing with almost everyone who has posted in the thread so far isn't exactly trolling. Yes, Keillor doesn't like us and likely means his little barbs. Shrug. He's a jerk.

who totally just noticed that "Desdemona" is trusting someone she probably shouldn't and thinks that's hilarious.

DairyStateDad said...

Well it only took me almost a week, but I've come to see things your way about Keillor's UU schtick in general.

Tom said...

Yes, Keillor’s Silent Night column was ill-tempered (to borrow the involved minister’s term) and factually wrong; his gay marriage columns was outright homophobic.

Still, calling for a boycott of all things Keillor-related (incl. the Prairie Home Companion) strikes me as silly and potentially stooping to a level more commonly associated with FOX News.

Robin Edgar said...

"Agreeing with almost everyone who has posted in the thread so far isn't exactly trolling."

I was speaking in general terms and referencing previous U*U accusations that I am nothing but a troll. . .

Joel Monka said...

So, Tom, are you saying that the concept that actions have consequences is silly? Or are you saying that it's silly to tell an entertainer that if he wants my patronage and my money, he might want to avoid insulting me? I'm not sure of your meaning.

If those are your principles, since you mention Fox, do you watch Bill OReilly and Sean Hannity? Buy their books? Have you bought Glenn Beck's videos yet? After all, if it's silly to let offensive words bother you...

John A Arkansawyer said...

Let's not be too harsh. <a href=">Garrison Keillor has his fans</a>.

Chalicechick said...

I'm not calling for a boycott exactly. A boycott is planned to serve a political purpose. I don't think convincing Keillor that he needs to better hide his bigotry is a worthy purpose.

Besides, I'm sure at some point he will apologize with the same sort of "But my best friends are all gay" crap he used in response to his jokes about homosexuals and gay parents. I don't want his apology especially.

I'm just sick of UUs taking a "Well, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" attitude toward the nastier aspects of Keillor's humor. Keillor's jokes about gays and Jews, and yes, us, should not be ignored and "Oh, but he was just kidding about how children are better off raised by straight people" attitude is just an excuse to keep nodding and smiling along when Keillor spews his bigoted bullshit.

I will make a final clarification, and one I've made in the comments sections of other blogs.

If you get that Keillor is a bigoted jerk and you want to listen to him anyway, I can live with that.

My concern is the people who are smiling and nodding and not seriously critically examining what they are listening to, blithely confident that Keillor doesn't mean the nasty stuff because he's such a great guy.


John A Arkansawyer said...

"I don't think convincing Keillor that he needs to better hide his bigotry is a worthy purpose."

Me, either--but what would be?

Chalicechick said...

A worthy purpose for writing Keillor letters? I haven't a clue.
He strikes me as the sort of man who regards his own stubborness as charming and old world.

As for a worthy purpose for not listening to bigoted jokes that thinly conceal prejudice, or at least listening and not going on about what a great guy the joker is, there are a variety of benefits:

1. You won't be exposing yourself to Keillor's jokes, making you less likely to nod along and tell yourself that bigotry really isn't that bad.

I've admitted here before that Bill Clinton, were he to stand in front of me and talk to me, could pretty much sell me anything. For me, Keillor doesn't have the same charms, but if someone else finds Keillor that appealing, I don't think they should let Keillor sell them bigotry.

2. You will not be contributing to the pathetic "Sure he makes fun of us, but he talks about us!" vibe that lots of UUs have with him. UUIsm is not the fawning fat girl who dotes on her "best friend," the bitchy homecoming queen who treats her like crap. We're a religion, let's have a little dignity.

3. You will not be making your gay, Jewish and UU friends listen to you go on about what a great guy Keillor is, with the implicit message that you don't feel like bigotry against them is a big deal.

4. You won't be contributing to a culture of intolerance and general suckitude to anyone who is different.


Robin Edgar said...

"UUIsm is not the fawning fat girl who dotes on her "best friend," the bitchy homecoming queen who treats her like crap. We're a religion, let's have a little dignity."

I hate to say so CC, but a few too many U*Us, including some U*U ministers in very high places at 25 Beacon Street, don't seem to give a crap about having "a little dignity" as the UUA's well-documented
fawning over the bitchy fat girl makes clear if I may mix a couple of your metaphors. . . A *that* is but one example of just how little dignity the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" known as The U*U Movement has these days.

Your parting shot about Keillor in your comment above could be just as easily applied to a boycott of U*U "churches", at least those with a well-established culture of intolerance towards Christians and other God believing people to say nothing of other general suckitude to anyone who is different aka not a member of the *club* to use GK's turn of a phrase. . . Am I wrong?

Chalicechick said...

Of course you're not wrong.

Indeed, walking out the door and not coing back is the best response to a church that treats you badly. And, yes, I'm happy to see the little churches who insist on intolerance die off as I think they have an unreasonable amount of negative influence on the way we are percieved.

As for the rest, if bodysnarking cheap shots about UU ministers is seriously the best you can do for a comment, fine, whatever, but don't bother to say "I hate to say so" when you very obviously love to say so and say so whenever you can.


Robin Edgar said...

"Saying nasty things about UUism and UUs is pretty much your primary goal in life as far as I can tell."

I think you kind of have it U*U backwards ass it were CC.

Saying things about U*Us who say and do nasty things, so that nasty U*Us become less nasty, is indeed one of my goals in life. One U*U minister insightfully calls it my "alternative spiritual practice".

What nasty things have I said about U*Uism itself, other than poking fun at Mary Bennett's Big Fat U*U Corporate Identity Gaffe of course? I thought that I was numbered amongst the more ardent affirmers and promoters of the U*U principles and purposes and other U*U ideals that nasty U*Us flagrantly disregard and wantonly violate.

If U*Us want "a little dignity" it would help if they behaved in a dignified manner wouldn't it? Respect is earned and lost as a result of one's words and actions. What have U*Us done to *earn* my respect in the last decade or so? If U*Us don't want me saying things about nasty U*Us perhaps they should deal responsibly with the nasty U*Us I talk about rather than Denying, Ignoring or Minimizing their "less than dignified" nastiness. . .

John A Arkansawyer said...

Not for writing letters particularly. The original context was boycotting the show, which you felt (correctly, I'd say) wasn't a "worthy purpose". (I may not be, or not have been, parsing your words correctly, so please yell if I misrepresent). I'm asking what reaction to Keillor would be a worthy purpose.

(This is all dreadfully written. I hope what I'm meaning comes through.)

Morgana Fillion said...

I've tried to listen to GK a few times and left, mostly bored and a bit unsettled at the fake folksiness (real folk don't have long running shows on NPR and endorsement deals that trade on their folksy persona), so I never knew he had any opinion on UUs.

I don't exactly disagree with him about wishing I could choose to alter lyrics to suit myself rather than having it done for me (Ok that isn't his point at all - that's just the issue I have with altered lyrics), but the rest of his article is a rather hilarious look at what happens when rants get posted without proper editing.

Setting aside the offensiveness of some of what he's written, he manages to internally contradict himself a few times - you can't declare that Christmas is for Christmas and everyone else buzz off and then say,

"Christmas does not need any improvements. It is a common ordinary experience that resists brilliant innovation. Just make some gingerbread persons and light three candles and sing softly in dim light about the poor man gathering winter fu-u-el and the radiant beams and the holly and the ivy, and you've got it."

Um.. everything listed there, from pastry poppets to holly and ivy are PAGAN customs, so I'll happily buzz off if he insists, but I'm taking my toys with me when I go.

Terrible how those Christians have to put up with so much 'spiritual piracy', eh?

Chalicechick said...


I'm not sure what you are asking. My solution is to either not listen to him, or listen to him while keeping in mind what a bigot he is. I've listed four reasons why I think not listening and/or listening thoughtfully make sense above.

What else do you want from me?


Tom said...

Chalicechick: "I'm not calling for a boycott exactly."

Chalicechick [earlier]: "For years I've been saying that Garrison Keillor sucks and we shouldn't listen to him. [...]
Quit listening.
Quit reading."

You weren't calling for a boycott? Coulda fooled me. ;-)

Again, I have nothing good to say about GK's columns about Silent Night or gay marriage. Keillor was just plain wrong on both counts and it's perfectly appropriate to call him out for it.

However, jumping from that to condemning a radio program where GK plays a character (and presumably writes a lot of the material) is too long a stretch, in my opinion. (And implying that UU listeners of that program are apologists for intolerance isn't very nice, either.)

Anyway, I can distinguish between GK's personal opinions and the jokes written for a comedic radio show. And I gotta say, the Unitarian jokes I heard on the Prairie Home Companion were spot-on. (No, I'm not a fan of the PHC, but I do listen to parts of the show occasionally, because I can't stand commercial radio and the college station plays nothing but "Christian rock" on Saturdays.)

P.S. I really like the "you star, you" notation invented by our Northern neighbors. :-)

Robin Edgar said...

:P.S. I really like the "you star, you" notation invented by our Northern neighbors. :-)

Needless to say the ever so anal Emerson Avenger positively *loves* Mary Bennett's U asterisk U "corporate identity" acronym cum logo for what is *now* The U*U Movement. The Emerson Avenger is ever grateful to ChaliceChick for freely and (ir)responsibly bringing it to his attention that famous UU, *now* famous U*U, the late great Kurt Vonnegut Jr. *also* perceived that an asterisk *could* be seen as a "picture of an asshole".

*Still* ROTFLMU*UO at Mary Bennett's Big Fat U*U "corporate identity" fi*ass*co, as the illustration for this almost brand*spanking new TEA blog post about the Garrison Keillor fi*ass*co clearly shows. :-)

John A Arkansawyer said...

I've been thinking about what I'd like (not from you, CC, but from the whole brouhaha, and I have an idea I'll let germinate a few weeks more.

Robin Edgar said...

It'll be "old news" by then.

Maybe you should just "let it go". . . :-)

Chalicechick said...

And clearly, he did.