E-mail Comment Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us Digg Technorati

[FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]

Jun 1, 2006 Brainwaves, In The News, Teh Funny

Whoops:

Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

“This volatile and dangerous source of energy” is no answer to the country’s energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the “threat” posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: “In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE].”

(Hat tip: RedState)

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 1st, 2006 at 2:38 PM and is filed under Brainwaves, In The News, Teh Funny. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
  • I'll quote my source:

    For Chomsky, turn over any monster anywhere and look at the underside. Each is clearly marked: MADE IN AMERICA. The cold war? All America’s fault: “The United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off.” Castro’s executions and prisons filled with dissenters? Irrelevant, for “Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism [from the U.S., of course] than any other country.” The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.” In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence. (City Journal)


    -- Pauley
  • Meg
    Chomsky is "whack"; Chomsky's arguments are "whack". And, since his arguments are whack, he must "whack".

    That is how your argument reads to me.
  • Meg
    In what I've read, he makes some fairly convincing arguments. And we need western critics in the west. He was ready to be arrested and lose a lucrative academic post in order to stand up for what he believes in. Also, Chomsky is not anti-american so much as anti-imperialism. Why does he think these events were the fault of the US government? If you refute an accurate representation of his argument, I will be much more inclined to listen. Right now, you have only said these claims are "crazy" but have not said why.
  • He also seems to be one of the most anti-American American intellects in existence. He's prospered from the American way of life, but at the same time sees nothing in America but ugliness, greed, and moral corruption, and thinks that the Cold War, Castro's executions and special prisons, and Khmer Rouge's Cambodian holocaust were all somehow the fault of the United States. Kinda stretches the limits of sanity, he does.

    -- Pauley
  • Meg
    Chomsky is actually one of the most renowned academics of our time, both in the originality and scope of his studies. He teaches at MIT. But he _should_ have thought to get the name of the magazine that was interviewing him. We all make mistakes, however, even brilliant academics.
  • Yeah. Chonsky's pretty whack, from what I've read.

    -- Pauley
  • Meg
    geez, that is only barely beaten by Chomsky's "Hustler" interview.
blog comments powered by Disqus