Somebody else's association.
My brother called to my attention the fact that with only a little bit of
precisely the sort of searching I usually conduct, I could have easily discovered
that there are others who associate to "running it up the flagpole",
but from a different source. It turns out that the Wikipedia has a
page devoted precisely to this phrase.
It's on that page that I learned
that the American comedian Allan Sherman used the phrase in one of his songs.
(Since I was first sent to this page someone has added the lyrics from an additional,
and much later, song that also uses it.) No mention, however, is made of Stan
Freberg, even though some simple calculating will show that Freberg's use of the
term predates Sherman's. Of course the phrase had been around before both of them
- that's why they used it - but both the Sherman example, and the Freberg one
to which I associate, show not only that it became part of popular culture, but
a part of numerous individual webs of association. And, as a captive to my own
web, I hadn't realized that someone else might relate to it from a different source.
It
would make sense for the Wikipedia page to take note of Stan Freberg and his use
of the phrase, but in order for it to do that, somebody is going to have to edit
the entry to include the necessary information. Should it also make sense that
I (now that I'm aware of the fact that such a page exists, but that the page doesn't
include important information which I'm aware of) should do the editing? Actually,
I think it does ... though I'm not going to do so. And that raises yet another
question. Anyone who delves into the pages of the Boidem should be aware that
on the whole I have a positive attitude toward the Wikipedia, or at least toward
the idea of the Wikipedia. If that's the case, why don't I contribute to it? On
one leg, I'm not really interested in information, but in contextual information
- not simply what is, but who says that it is, and where and when (hey, and why!)
they say it. It's in this aspect of context that I find the Wikipedia sorely lacking,
and this is a lack that I doubt can be rectified within the confines of the Wikipedia,
or of any encyclopedia. But that's on one leg. A more comprehensive examination
of the issue demands two legs, and a chair, and more time. And it's most definitely
the subject for a future column.
Go to: About that title, or
Go to: What's
so bad about advertising?, or
Go to: There
are legitimate reasons, or
Go to: Still
running it up the flagpole