I think most people found Garrison's earlier writings as a place to escape the realities of the real world for awhile. Heck, the place he wrote about most often was a made up place, Lake Wobegon, that we all wished we could live in for at least a few minutes a week while he spoke about the kindness of the people and the simplicity of the…
I think most people found Garrison's earlier writings as a place to escape the realities of the real world for awhile. Heck, the place he wrote about most often was a made up place, Lake Wobegon, that we all wished we could live in for at least a few minutes a week while he spoke about the kindness of the people and the simplicity of their lifestyles. Sure, he may have mixed in some political or social commentary but it was much more subtle and involved less name calling. I don't feel like he excluded half the population in his earlier writings. My 2 cents.
And a good $.02. Thanks. Of course that was the time before my neighbor felt free to wear a t shirt emblazoned with “F**k Your Feelings”, permission granted by a movement based on hate of “others”.
Indeed. There have always been differing political points of view - but we could still enjoy and respect each other. From 2006 to 2014 we lived in Maine next door to an affluent financial executive guy. A self described "conservative". The four of us would enjoy cocktails and dinners. The discussions were great. Why? Because we agreed to tackle each topic with the goal of finding common solutions - he using his right leaning religious ideas and me with my lefty agnostic idealism.
At the end of the evening we would hug and exclaim "Look how we figured that out!" Whether it was homelessness or government regulation, we always found middle ground compromises and solutions. And we teased each other along the way. Healthy discussions between two radically different political perspectives.
Why was that possible? Because we really cared for each other, never demonized the others ideas and were determined to work the ideas through - together. It was fun.
But upon reflection, maybe it worked because my friend was employing the original ideas of Jesus. Who, of course, wrote the book on DEI :)
So true Bill. And amazingly in those times I was able to adjust my thinking about various topics because of the discourse. It’s quite different these days when so much that is debated is either a product of culture wars or out and out lies, mis and dis- information. Thankfully among some I still carry the title “my favorite liberal”.
I’m pretty old, but I have never lived in a time when half the population has been brainwashed to believe the demise of democratic government is a good thing.
The commentary was much more subtle because Republican leaders back then didn't talk about grabbing women by the pu$$y or accuse minorities of eating our pets. They were never found liable for sexual assault. They weren't impeached. They didn't threaten to jail their political opponents. They didn't claim in advance that they wouldn't respect the results of an election if they lost. Why on earth would you expect commentary to remain subtle given the total lack of subtlety (and integrity, and decency, and honesty) that Republicans have looked for in their candidates of choice?
I think most people found Garrison's earlier writings as a place to escape the realities of the real world for awhile. Heck, the place he wrote about most often was a made up place, Lake Wobegon, that we all wished we could live in for at least a few minutes a week while he spoke about the kindness of the people and the simplicity of their lifestyles. Sure, he may have mixed in some political or social commentary but it was much more subtle and involved less name calling. I don't feel like he excluded half the population in his earlier writings. My 2 cents.
And a good $.02. Thanks. Of course that was the time before my neighbor felt free to wear a t shirt emblazoned with “F**k Your Feelings”, permission granted by a movement based on hate of “others”.
Hi Gail!
Indeed. There have always been differing political points of view - but we could still enjoy and respect each other. From 2006 to 2014 we lived in Maine next door to an affluent financial executive guy. A self described "conservative". The four of us would enjoy cocktails and dinners. The discussions were great. Why? Because we agreed to tackle each topic with the goal of finding common solutions - he using his right leaning religious ideas and me with my lefty agnostic idealism.
At the end of the evening we would hug and exclaim "Look how we figured that out!" Whether it was homelessness or government regulation, we always found middle ground compromises and solutions. And we teased each other along the way. Healthy discussions between two radically different political perspectives.
Why was that possible? Because we really cared for each other, never demonized the others ideas and were determined to work the ideas through - together. It was fun.
But upon reflection, maybe it worked because my friend was employing the original ideas of Jesus. Who, of course, wrote the book on DEI :)
So true Bill. And amazingly in those times I was able to adjust my thinking about various topics because of the discourse. It’s quite different these days when so much that is debated is either a product of culture wars or out and out lies, mis and dis- information. Thankfully among some I still carry the title “my favorite liberal”.
I’m simply known among my friends of the opposing viewpoint as the resident heretic.😆
I love it! 😘
I’m pretty old, but I have never lived in a time when half the population has been brainwashed to believe the demise of democratic government is a good thing.
The apathy in these comments is disheartening.
The commentary was much more subtle because Republican leaders back then didn't talk about grabbing women by the pu$$y or accuse minorities of eating our pets. They were never found liable for sexual assault. They weren't impeached. They didn't threaten to jail their political opponents. They didn't claim in advance that they wouldn't respect the results of an election if they lost. Why on earth would you expect commentary to remain subtle given the total lack of subtlety (and integrity, and decency, and honesty) that Republicans have looked for in their candidates of choice?