M.A.D. About NukesWritten by Ed Howes
Continued from page 1
I know typical objection to allowing just anybody to have weapons of mass destruction, but what can we do when it cannot be prevented? Certainly we will have equivalent of a global wild west, when many adults were armed twenty four hours per day and lawless killed one another, as best they could. That doesn't happen so much as it once did, but lawless folks of those days had very short careers. Now they find a way to become heads of states for 30 and 40 years, in some cases. This is because no one with superior force objects to their rule in any meaningful way, until very recently.
If South Africa gave up its nuclear development program, it was not just to appease non proliferation dreamers. It was to save money in absence of a strong external threat. Other would-be nuclear powers are not that fortunate. They have or imagine serious threats to sovereignty and rightfully so in either case. Why don't we make friends of Iran and North Korea, before they get their nukes? Let U.S. send a new message. America will treat you right, even if you have no nukes and you are decidedly more evil than we are. But then, we hate those more evil than us, unless they have nukes already. It is our duty to punish those we can get away with punishing. Ask U.S. President.
It is mostly those who pose no threat to others that remain un-threatened by others. The United States poses a threat to entire world and entire world has become a threat to United States. “All king's horses and all king's men” cannot prevent future attacks, no matter how much credit they spend. Only when people of world are armed with weapons of mass destruction that could be readily used against them, will there be any serious discussion of disarmament on a global scale. Until then, every have-not has a duty to become a have, in order to end dominance and submission games dominants so love to play. Long live Mutually Assured Destruction! All for nukes and nukes for all! At least until love becomes globally preferred to fear as a means of social control.
Freelance writer published on many websites and in newspapers. email@example.com justanotherview.com
The Ironies Of MASH Written by Stephen Schochet
Continued from page 1
With Alda being aloof, some of rest of cast became difficult. McLean Stevenson began to demand he only do one take. Why? Because Sinatra only did one take. He wanted to sit down in his scenes? Because Sinatra always sat down. Gary Burghoff, who future co-star Mike Farrell would later call greatest actor on show, drove directors crazy by causing delays, asking what Radar's motivation was for every scene. Loretta Swit became argumentative and difficult. Only Wayne Rogers and Larry Linville caused no problems. Yet ratings continued to rise.
The ultimate irony came from source material. MASH continued to blast army, often making Generals look like buffoons, and making several communist characters noble. Alda seemed to lighten up as show got new cast members and became even more successful. But one person who found it difficult to watch was man who wrote book from which both movie and television show were inspired by, Dr. Richard Hornberger. He was especially bothered by Alda's portrayal of Hawkeye, character he patterned after himself, because Hornberger was a Conservative, flag waving, pro-military hawk.
Stephen Schochet is the author and narrator of the audiobooks "Fascinating Walt Disney" and "Tales Of Hollywood". The Saint Louis Post Dispatch says," these two elaborate productions are exceptionally entertaining." Hear realaudio samples of these great, unique gifts at www.hollywoodstories.com.