Sunday, 15 November 2009

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Bowing Hour!

(Apparently TypePad timed out and didn't post this yesterday, in case you're wondering why it only went up now.)

Seems someone forgot to tell Ike what everyone on the right knows (but oddly never cites a source for): the President never ever bows. Because as even a cursory search of the AP Image archive indicates, the man could not stop bowing. Hello there, Pope John XXIII!


Howdy to you, wife of Italian Prime Minister Giovanni Gronchi!

Hi again, Archbishop Iakovos of New York, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America!

Long time no see, Charles De Gaulle!

By their logic, I believe that last bow means we have all been French since 2 September 1959. Eisenhower clearly demonstrated by that bow that the American President is a subordinate of the French, which means that for the past 50 years America has been a French territory with pretensions of sovereignty. Mon Dieu!

Nov 15, 2009 3:44:24 PM

5 Comments

Adam Roberts

You're sure he's bowing? Sure that's not curvature of the spine? I know how you Americans like your Presidents with physical deformity.

Posted by: Adam Roberts | Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 04:21 PM

tomemos

And to think, if I wasn't so stupid as to read blogs, I never would have known about the latest ridiculous faux outrage. That kills me.

Posted by: tomemos | Monday, 16 November 2009 at 01:05 AM

SEK

Not that blogs aren't the devil (they clearly are), but you could've gotten this from the Washington Post too.

Posted by: SEK | Monday, 16 November 2009 at 11:15 AM

james suhr

This whole bowing thing is out of control. I like my presidents demanding respect from others without giving any in return. Now what was that type of person called?... Oh yeah! A jackass!

Posted by: james suhr | Monday, 16 November 2009 at 04:49 PM

JPRS

Now I know why I suddenly got all that traffic on my old blog entry (Nixon and Hirohito): http://jprschaefer.blogspot.com/2009/04/president-bows-to-foreign-leader.html

Posted by: JPRS | Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at 02:26 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Once upon a time, her crazy had more bite. As I'm catching flack from, among others, two of the three co-panelists from my MLA panel on academic blogging concerning the title to my Camille Paglia post, I feel the need to have Molly Ivins clarify it for me (courtesy of Ahistoricality) :You think perhaps this is a cheap shot, that I have searched her work and caught Ms. Paglia in a rare moment of sweeping generalization, easy to make fun of? Au contraire, as we always say in Amarillo; the sweeping generalization is her signature. In fact, her work consists of damn little else. She is the queen of the categorical statement.There was a period in which Paglia could be counted on to be write with force and clarity, i.e. before she began writing disorganized columns brimming over with self-aggrandizing allusions and mindless repetitions of right-wing talking-points. In 1991, she even possessed prescience enough to predict her own rightward drift: [I]f people are trying to critique from within the academic establishment, and they're getting tarred with the word "neoconservative," you keep on doing that long enough, people will get used to hearing it about themselves, and they will become conservative.Case in point: Camille Paglia. Did her ready-made anti-feminist statements predispose her to drifting so? Without a doubt. Were her arguments about the inability of woman to create truly great art always as absurd as they seem now? Absolutely. However, she would not have become the media sensation she was in the early '90s had she not packaged her faux-feminist critiques in a language understandable to the general intellectual culture. There were (and are) many anti-feminst thinkers who rivaled Paglia in virulence but not prominence, and the point of my title was that she now resembles those muted, vainglorious misogynists more than the contrarian firebrand she once was.
PREVIOUS POST
Shpadoinkle! Sarah Palin endorses cannibalism. From the NRO's new shrine to Sarah Palin:If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore: If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat? Because He wanted everyone to have a shpadoinkle day? More seriously, Palin is calling Him a rank hypocrite, because He also said "You must not eat bats" and yet he made them out of meat. Ignorance of the Original Testament hypocrisy is, I admit, the easiest hypocrisy to spot, but it's the least effective to mock on account of its profundity. If someone were to inform Palin that her beloved moose aren't kosher because they weren't properly shekhted and porged, she'd complain about "gotcha journalism" and question your love of America on account of her profound ignorance of the book she claims to live her life by. Fortunately for semi-professional mockers such as myself, Palin set the standard demonstrably lower by claiming that God intended humans to eat anything made out of meat.

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments