Because that’s so totally NOT what the phrase means. “Do not go gently into that good night” is a metaphor for the struggle to survive. Do not merely succomb to death peacefully, fight it every step of the way. Thomas wrote it for his for his father, who was dying at the time.
It has absolutely nothing to do with getting drunk.
It’s “gentle”, not “gently”, and it was written about 5 years before his father’s death.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with borrowing a quote as long as one doesn’t portend one coined it himself.
You may be interested to know that in taverns per capita, seven of the top* eight U.S. cities are located in the great state of Wisconsin. When it comes to those long winters, Wisconsinites obviously don’t believe in going gently into that good night.
*
— Cecil Adams
“portend”?
I’m a little skeptical regarding the authenticity of this quote. Surely Abe would have used the correct grammar here: to whom.
That’s what I thought too. And he probably would have said “crack head” instead of “crack addict”. It’s like you can’t trust the internet anymore.
Succumbing to a long Wisconsin winter is being held analogous to succumbing to death. They are fighting the “long good night” of an endless winter (like an endless death) with alcohol. That’s their fight.
Cecil is not saying “when it comes to those long winters, Wisconsinites obviously don’t believe in getting shit-faced.” That makes no sense.
To quote George Will, “I exaggerated only for effect”. Is it the definition of the word “nearly” that we disagree on?
If you look on other threads you’ll see that my auto-correct has been screwy this week, changing words before I notice it. On one in GD I reposted that something was a typo and it kept changing it to tempo. :mad:
No, he was saying we DO believe in getting shit faced. That’s how we don’t go into that good night gently.
It was a para-phrase. A play on words if you will. Play along. No need to be a Richard Bean about it.
IOW, you don’t have a cite. I didn’t think so.
What I would be nervous about is what if a sudden event occurs like 9/11 and suddenly the president has to go on camera and talk to the people? If he’s laid out drunk or even a little drunk he might say something he should not. Remember alcohol loosens the tongue.
You might want to explore the uses of the button to the right of the one that says “Submit Reply”.
And no matter who said what when, “go gently into that good night” is not a good way to say “remain sober”.
(It also sets my teeth on edge, as the second most annoying common misquotation I can think of.)
Like when someone says “I could care less” when, like me at your ire, they couldn’t care less?
World leaders are on call 24/7 and they should never be shit-faced, just like a brain surgeon who is on call. A crisis might emerge any time and they wouldn’t want to have their judgment or sobriety called into question. So while an occasional glass of wine or beer wouldn’t be frowned on, a “huge drunk or stoner” would soon be removed from office, perhaps even by his own party, because he/she would be jeopardizing national and world security.
Right. for example what if say they are drunk and give out some big secret?
I know how he was trying to say it (about getting shit-faced). My point was that as a synonym for shit-faced it’s a joke, it doesn’t make sense otherwise. In his quote it was obvious since he was making the winter=death analogy. In your use of it it didn’t, since their was no similar analogy.
Anyway, that’s about as much as I shoukd invest in this debate, especially since the likelihood of changing your mind is pretty low.
Yes, it was a distraction because the use of the phrase was jarringly incorrect, as you observe. The fact that the OP chooses to not care a bit of a further distraction, but there ya go. pkbites - it was a simple error on your part; no biggie, but clear and obvious. Whatever, you could care less 
As for the OP question, I recall that from contemporary writing (some his own) and later biographies that Churchill was often drinking throughout the day and typically had a buzz going in many situations he faced in WW2.
I think in this age of close observation, things have changed.
I have no doubt there are a lot of functional alcoholics in the Federal government. As long as they are functional, it is going to get covered up/ignored by their own party, and by the media (unless it is a Republican and the crisis is over).
Regards,
Shodan
What’s the first?
I don’t need one, This is the Humble Opinion section. Yes, I have a cite for that: