 |
 |
Get
Updates |
God bless those Brits (love
them, hate
them). Despite spending most of their time fretting over
whether Tony sniffs George's ass too much or whether Tony gives
it to Cherie too much or whether Charles or Wills will be the
next Queen of England, they still have time to focus on the
absurd. According to the BBC, a British bookmaker is giving 6-1
to odds that actor Michael Douglas will one day become President
of the United States. You see Michael, like most self-important,
self-deluded, self-gratifying, liberal Hollywood types, fancies
himself more than a guy who makes a living kissing Glenn Close's
breasts on film. He fancies himself a political thinker, nay, he
fancies himself Savior of the World, and so do the salivating
British press.
"Michael
Douglas is no stranger to the world on international diplomacy
and negotiation," writes the BBC. "In 1998 he was
named a United Nations Messenger of Peace with a mission to
focus worldwide attention on nuclear disarmament and human
rights. And, unlike most potential candidates for the
presidency, he has already had a rehearsal of what might be
involved if he is one day working out of the Oval Office. In
1995, he starred in the film, The American President, in which
he played a widowed world leader who begins dating again."
Now
I get it. Dubya is just a hackneyed bum-pimple whose only
rehearsal for the presidency was sticking a fork in Ann
Richards. But Douglas, now there's the American president Europe
longs to see. And why not, Douglas lives in the same brain-dead,
feel-good, freedom-ain't-worth-defending world as most
Europeans.
Douglas
is a movie star not a professional combatant in the arena of
ideas, so his political views, when made public, can lead to
seductive agreement by those who are unfortunate enough to be
exposed to them. When Douglas made an appearance before the
Canadian Parliament, one observer remarked, "I've heard the
secretaries are floating through the air. Goo goo, ga ga. Maybe
I'll get an autograph for my wife." Goo goo, ga ga indeed.
The reaction was the same when in March, 2024 Douglas spoke
before the British House of Commons, appearing before the body
in his capacity as United Nations Messenger of Peace. United
Nations Messenger of Bullshit seems a more appropriate title.
The aging, destined-to-be-ex-husband of Catherine Zeta-Jones was
in London to convince the British that they alone are
"uniquely placed" to save the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty from falling apart, and in the process save the world
from America.
Douglas
used this grand stage to continue his war against the Strategic
Defense Initiative. Douglas labeled SDI as a threat to world
peace, saying, "Three control treaties are in danger of
coming apart at a time when more material for making weapons of
mass destruction is available worldwide than ever before. The
horrific prospect opens up a world of nuclear anarchy, where any
feud between countries could degenerate into a death warrant for
the entire planet."
I
almost expected the next words out of his mouth to be "It's
not happiness to see me is it." What Michael Douglas fails
to comprehend is that nuclear treaties—like
gun control laws—mean
nothing to outlaws or outlaw nations, who never respect words
written on paper but always respect the threat of annihilation.
But in the world that Michael Douglas dreams of, America will
not have the ability to protect herself from nuclear missile
attack or retaliate against such an attack.
Douglas
is an advisor and contributor to many leftwing organizations,
including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which sounds like a
nice group but whose agenda leads me to believe they are more
interested in military parity among nations than peace. Joining
Douglas as advisors to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are Ted
Turner and Gerry Spence. Are you getting the picture? The
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has some nutty participants and
some nutty ideas.
The
stated vision of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is as follows:
"Our
vision is a world at peace, free of the threat of war and
free of weapons of mass destruction. It is a world where
conflicts are settled nonviolently; a world where human and
natural resources are used constructively and sustainably; a
world where all individuals live with human dignity,
compassion, and respect for one another; and a world where
local, national and international institutions support these
aims."
Michael
Douglas has said abolition of nuclear weapons is a moral
imperative. Can anybody tell me what's wrong with this picture?
In what kind of world do these people think we are living?
Nuclear technology, and therefore nuclear weaponry, is like
fire: once discovered, it will never again cease to exist and no
amount of irrational daydreaming will make it disappear. That is
a very, very unfortunate fact, but it is a fact. I wish
more than anything we lived in a world where the reality of
nuclear annihilation wasn't possible, but we don't. I'm willing
to to bet that if any of these no-nukes types were asked whether
marijuana or cocaine could be abolished they'd say no.Why then
do they think nukes can, and why is it so difficult for some
people to agree in principle that given the ability to defend
ourselves against such weapons (without having to harm anyone
else in the process) we should refrain from doing so?
It is not as though as our defense we are relying on the threat
that if our enemy attacks us we will destroy them. SDI improves
the prospects for nuclear peace in our time it does not threaten
them. But if we're to believe Michael Douglas, a nuclear
exchange is imminent if SDI is developed by the United States.
I
do wonder, though, what President Michael Douglas's first
official act would be. Aside from eliminating a missile defense
program I imagine he would implement his nuke-eradicating master
plan, which calls for the reallocation of 35 billion dollars
spent on maintaining our nuclear forces to provide for social
welfare spending throughout the rest of the world. President
Douglas won't give the money back to the people to whom it
belongs—the U.S.
taxpayer—rather,
he will redistribute it to the Third World. But I have a better
idea. Why not take the millions of dollars I'm sure it takes to
maintain Michael's idiotic ass in the lifestyle of the rich and
famous and give it to those programs instead. As for me, I
prefer the money I send my government be used to secure the
national defense by investing in a missile defense system and
maintaining all our armed forces, including the nuclear forces.
The
ironic thing is that three months after the attacks of 9/11, and
much to Michael Douglas's dismay, the US did withdraw from the
ABM treaty, President Bush vowed to build a missile defense
system as soon as possible, and shortly thereafter signed an
agreement with Russia to drastically reduce both country's
nuclear arsenals, getting the world closer to nuclear
disarmament than anything Michael Douglas has done. Now that is
an American precedent that Britain and the rest of Europe need
to follow, made possible by an American president they'd better
get used to.
I
just hope that when we do get our missile defense shield in
place we can find a way to leave Michael Douglas unprotected, so
that when the missiles come, this no-nuke puke can fully enjoy
the fruits of his labor.
Nathan Porter is
responsible for BSNN.net.
|
Shop PUSA
Shakedown
: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson
by Kenneth R. Timmerman
Scan your PC for viruses now!
Magazine of the Month
Founding Brothers : The
Revolutionary Generation
by Joseph J. Ellis
DVD's Under $10 at buy.com!
Cigar.com
Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism
in Central Asia
by Ahmed Rashid
Leather -
Sale (30 to 50% off)
Shop for Your Princess at DisneyStore.com 
Unholy Wars:
Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism
by John K. Cooley
|
