|
|
|
September 15, 2009
Kaelian frogs and Obama's pot
Speaking of political surrealism, did you know that if you boil Pauline Kael slowly, she won't jump out of the pot? And no frog ever knew a frog that actually voted for Nixon! Both statements are absolutely true. Honestly, I don't see why people have to be so nit-picky, but Glenn Reynolds was taken to task for citing the apparently apocryphal anecdote about Pauline Kael. The whole thing reminded me that it's sometimes tough to blog about anything. You can't just speak your mind and be done with it. (I've had repeated trouble with slowly boiled frogs, but I got away with Kaelianism. Twice! And it's too late for nitpickers to correct me as the comments expired long ago. Nyah nyah!) OTOH, I did get in trouble for quoting a famous Churchill remark (about "fearful fatalistic apathy") that was supposedly later retracted. And because he retracted it, I was told I shouldn't cite it! Nor should I have called Ann Coulter a "cute blonde bombshell!" As to why the Kaelian frogs refuse to jump out of Obama's pot, I'm thinking it has something to do with fearful fatalistic apathy. posted by Eric on 09.15.09 at 09:45 AM
Comments
Heck, I'm with Instadude here. For one thing, the quote perfectly encapsulates a certain mindset. It is by no means reserved for the left, but it does typify the behavior by and large of lefty pols and opinion makers. And Reynolds is absolutely right - The Kaelian Surprise sounds like a classic Trek episode title. Steve Skubinna · September 15, 2009 01:39 PM The Kael quote is, dare I say, "fake but accurate"? Rhodium Heart · September 15, 2009 02:35 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2009
August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• What happens there can happen here!
• Leviticus "sting" video and other heresies • ex post facto jackass punk issues • Texas Style • We are all "racists" now. Except for the racists. • ACORN Is Looking For A Few Good Gynecologists - Or Is Bill Gates In Favor Of Child Prostitution? • Vanguard Of The Proletariat • "This is a private video." • "And I shot him. And he died. Right there." • But aren't certain ideas outside the conservative mainstream?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I don't really understand the Kael quote controversy. Even though Nixon won in a landslide, Kael said she only knew one person who voted for him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Nixon_.22quote.22
So what's the big deal, the fact that she never said "I can't believe he won"? Seems a bit nit-picky. Doesn't every journalist regularly paraphrase quotations? Why single out this one quote?