02 March 2008

Sunday Judgment VI

A couple of years ago, my one-a-day usage errors calendar (yes, I had one) went off mission for a page to tackle a pronunciation issue. I'll take that as license to do likewise. To be honest, though, I think the author and an awful lot of other people make too big a deal about this particular mistake.

Who cares if people say "nucular" instead of "nuclear"?

Aren't there tons of other words that get mispronounced all the time that no one cares about? Why do we reserve special condemnation for this one in particular? Hell, I've heard professors and industry professionals say "nucular." I dislike George Bush as much as the next guy, and I agree that no one's going to confuse him with George Plimpton, but can we just let it go?

Turns out I'm not the only one who's thought about this. And, actually, the "army of coal-powered zombie dolphins" bit notwithstanding, I think this video might be on to something regarding what quite probably is a rhetorical move on Bush's part:

In other nuclear news, my old friend Ryan Hagen just sent me a link to a video he came across. He sums it up pretty well: "It's not even really fair to say it's an intellectually lazy guide, because it's on a whole different planet--but it's an interesting look into the way nuclear energy continues to be perceived." The subject of the video? "Hunting the Radioactive Beasts of Chernobyl," apparently.

I won't insult your intelligence by discussing what's wrong with it, although I'll share that my favorite line was "This is what happens when we play with technology we don't understand." You can say that again.

Warning: This video contains foul language. Like, a lot of it. And also booze.

No comments: