Hypocrisy Shmycoprisy. . .Shmyposcrify. . .Shmypography. . . .Oh, You Get the Idea

Today's "Plinky" prompt is "Where is a good place to see wild animals?" What the hell kind of a question is that?!? "Uhh. . . My kitchen?" Maybe if you're Borealkraut. For us normal folks who live in the contiguous (i.e., "real") United States, however, the options are more limited. There's the zoo, Animal Planet, the Santa Monica Freeway. . . and that's about it.

What's next, Plinky? "What whole numbers can you find between 4 and 6?"

*********************************

But that's not what we're here to discuss today.

Earlier today, on Yahoo!'s "Top Searches," "Anne Frank" appeared right above "Ahmadinejad." We thought the juxtaposition striking, if not necessarily filled with symbolic meaning.

We've been thinking lately about Ahmadinejad and Iran, especially with all the hubbub over their possible attempts to build nuclear weapons.

Don't get us wrong: We certainly do not want to see Iran go nuclear, especially with a lunatic like Ahmadinejad in anything resembling a position of authority. At the same time, though, we can't help but find something eminently reasonable about the Iranian argument: Who are the United States, other declared nuclear powers, and the United Nations to "allow" us to pursue nuclear weapons?

Isn't there something inherently hypocritical about nuclear-armed nations declaring that no other countries should be allowed to go nuclear? In this case, to be sure, hypocrisy is preferable to the alternatives. But why is hypocrisy necessary? Why not simply say, "OK, you got us: We're NOT arguing that you shouldn't have nuclear weapons because they are dangerous or destructive or potentially world-ending. We're arguing that you shouldn't have nuclear weapons because we don't like or trust you to (not) use them responsibly."

Let's be honest, would anybody really get into a lather if Sweden or Canada decided to go nuclear? Of course not. We'd all think it was adorable.