A Modest Proposal

Via Larison, here's Jim Pinkerton:

... with all due respect to former Vice President Al Gore, we might as well just say it bluntly: Muslims with atomic weapons are a greater threat to America than global warming.

When kids see "Harry Potter," they should be thinking first about defending their country, and their civilization, against evildoers wielding weapons of mass destruction. After that's taken care of, they can then worry more about carbon dioxide.

Or perhaps left and right could agree that children should be brought up to live in fear of neither global warming nor weapons of mass destruction. Would that be too much to ask?

Comments

OK.

It's probably too much to ask that he remove the word "Muslim" and replace it with "Enemies of the United States" of something sensible, but can't he at least qualify it? Something like "radical extremist Muslims" or something, throw a bone to however many non-extremist Muslims there are in the world who aren't already exceedingly suspicious of us, will ya?

Isn't it remarkable that the word "Muslim" in the first paragraph seems to be synonymous with word "evil-doers" in the second. This is either very sloppy writing, or revealing of a deep and disturbing prejudice.

Posted by Curtis Erhart | July 20, 2007 2:36 AM

Can we sign some sort of bipartisan Non-Politicization of Pop Culture Treaty? Or would that infringe too much on sovereignty for the right-of-center types?

With Transformers and now Potter, I've had enough.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 20, 2007 2:46 AM

Pinkerton's a member of the conservative wing that says we should pull out of Iraq becauase the dirty Arabs are too violent and stupid to understand democracy --- the standard "it's their fault they didn't take our wonderful gift" argument. He is not a particularly intelligent person, especially when dealing with matters outside of U.S. domestic politics.

Sadly these people are especially common nowadays even on the Left, but especially on the Right, their natural home.

Posted by tequila | July 20, 2007 4:45 AM

Was this man ever a child?

Posted by William Burns | July 20, 2007 6:08 AM

Clearly, there's no hope of working on both problems simultaneously! No! We must choose! If we fight global warming, Muslims will nuke us! And, and, rock stars own their own jet planes! And Al Gore is pompous! And John Edwards lives in a big house, so we should subsidize Exxon-Mobil!

Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here! Except that fighting global warming anywhere would mean fighting the terrorists here! Or not even! Whether we fight global warming or not, the Muslims might nuke us! Sure I know I said fight them in Iraq so they won't nuke us, but they might nuke us anyway!

But don't raise your children in fear of either!

Posted by Bill | July 20, 2007 7:58 AM

How far have we come -- from "The only thing we have to fear is..." to "They're coming for your children." I read a column by Rick Santorum with a title like, "Iran's nuclear reactors... should send shivers." Should send shivers? He's catholic, right? Whatever happened to "Be Not Afraid"? I don't think that Americans reason most soundly and judiciously under the influence of fear.

Posted by James Fed Up | July 20, 2007 9:37 AM

It's probably too much to ask that he remove the word "Muslim" and replace it with "Enemies of the United States" of something sensible, but can't he at least qualify it?

Just count yourself lucky that he even mentioned atomic weapons. If the focus is on nukes, its hard to defend Bush's policies or McCain's proposals. Personally, I find global warming scarier than Iranian nukes--MAD doesn't seem to work as well against atmospheric gases as it does against foreign governments. The solution to both problems probably involves curtailing oil usage, though. For the children.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 20, 2007 10:01 AM

Well, I'd personally rather live with global warming than be in the neighborhood of a nuclear detonantion, but that's because global warming will mainly be an annoyance for those of us in the First World while a nuclear blast is perfectly egalitarian in its deadly effects. However, far more damage is likely to be done by global wraming overall than by Islamic people with nuclear weapons, even if some Al Qaida nut job gets hold of a couple and lights them off somewhere someday.

Posted by Jonf | July 20, 2007 1:23 PM

But if the children aren't brought up to live in fear of something, the Republican party would have no future.

Posted by Steven Donegal | July 20, 2007 3:55 PM

Pakistan is a Muslim country and it has nuclear weapons, yet I don't fear an attack and neither does James Pinkerton. I guess what he means is that if that if Al-Qaeda had nuclear weapons they'd be more dangerous than they are, which is true, but not nearly as significant as he pretends.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | July 21, 2007 9:25 AM

biogen doubleleaf unseemingly unsuperlative cristispira noninoculation anvasser ablepharon
http://cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/05/07/nursing.shortage/ >U.S. nursing shortage 'going into crisis'
http://www.thetackbox.com/GrandRiver/

Posted by Melody Ramsey | December 20, 2007 12:29 PM