Legitimizing the U.N. & Iran…Again
I was in the gym this evening, watching a bit of news about the Iranian president’s speech earlier today, and what should come up on the station I was watching? That America has admitted to the size of its nuclear stockpile.
I was rather torn with my initial reaction- the national security hawk in me was upset at this potentially (though not likely) harmful release of information. However, the libertarian side of my brain was glad that the American people would have just that much more knowledge about what the government has for weaponry.
Unfortunately, I then got a shock: apparently, it was done to pressure Iran regarding its own nuclear ambitions. According to the Associated Press:
The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and “several thousand” more retired warheads awaiting the junkpile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.
The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
I understand the basic idea- show a willingness to be reasonable, and perhaps other countries will back us. However, given that the United Nations just gave Iran a position on its Commission on the Status of Women, I would say this shows the very severe lack of seriousness on the part of the U.N. leadership regarding the rights of women; holding Iran accountable for anything; and for the future prospects of stopping Iran’s nuclear program. It appears the Obama administration doesn’t understand this, and thus how useless its own gestures of outreach are.
Corpse: only the E is Silent.
I don’t mean to dwell on such minutiae, really. However, considering the amount of flack that Former President Bush (43) received over how he pronounced “nuclear,” in what can be considered journalistic fairness, we will look into the same matter with current President Obama.
Some people have difficulties framing certain words a certain way (which tends to be the way others may pronounce them). Sometimes we just can’t seem to get a word right because of our speaking abilities, our accents, or perhaps a good old fat tongue. This can lead to real problems for some people, just ask the Ephraimites in the Book of Judges:
In the story, two Semitic tribes, the Ephraimites and the Gileadites, have a great battle. The Gileadites defeat the Ephraimites, and set up a blockade across the Jordan River to catch the fleeing Ephraimites who were trying to get back to their territory. The sentries asked each person who wanted to cross the river to say the word shibboleth. The Ephraimites, who had no sh sound in their language, pronounced the word with an s and were thereby unmasked as the enemy and slaughtered. (The Story of Shibboleth)
I would recommend that you go to a number of your friends, and hear which ones properly pronounce the month Fe-brew-air-ee instead if Fe-byou-air-ee. So picking on people for pronouncing words is a bit childish, but the left made it a part time occupation during Bush’s eight years, as did popular shows like my two personal favorites The Simpsons and Family Guy. This all tied into the “Bush is Stupid” mantra, and Bush supporters gritted their teeth and said “back off” or perhaps even joined in on the linguistic fun.
Slate.com’s Kate Taylor wrote an article entitled “Why Does Bush Go Nucular?” in which she gives a half-hearted defense of the President’s pronunciation of the word:
When speaking about nuclear weapons, George W. Bush invariably pronounces the word “nucular.” Is this an acceptable pronunciation?
Not really. Changing “nu-clee-ar” into “nu-cu-lar” is an example of what linguists call metathesis, which is the switching of two adjacent sounds. (Think of it this way: “nook le yer” becomes “nook ye ler.”) This switching is common in English pronunciation; you might pronounce “iron” as “eye yern” rather than “eye ron.”
