It’s not easy being a kid these days. First off, there’s the high divorce rate, disintegrating families, bullying and violence in the schools, drug and alcohol abuse, gangs, peer pressure, the lack of proper role models, and eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia. To say nothing of childhood obesity at the other end of the scale, increasing rates of depression and other clinical psychopathologies, and the decline of religion with its resultant absence of anything to believe in - it all adds up to a bummer of a childhood for altogether too many.
If all that wasn’t enough, one more item can now be added to the list of childhood horrors: global warming. (Cue shrieking violin music from “Psycho” shower scene: Re-e-e-e-t! Re-e-e-e-t! Re-e-e-e-t! Re-e-e-e-t!) That’s right. According to a survey of British children between the ages of seven and eleven, fully half are worried about it, and many of them are actually losing sleep at night.
Well, golly gee willikers! How pitiful can you get? When I was that age, I only lost sleep after a bad report card or maybe worrying about how many licks I was going to get when my dad found out I broke one of his golf clubs. And even though the Cold War was raging and we were all highly cognizant of the possibility of worldwide nuclear annihilation, I never lost any sleep over it and never heard of any other kid who did either. Lose sleep over global warming? Whining over such a thing back then probably would have gotten you a thrashing.
But things are different nowadays and in Britain the ultimate in scary bedtime stories might go something like this:
Once upon a time there was a pristine planet where all of nature lived in perfect harmony and was as yet unsullied by the rapacious depredations of that two-legged menace known as man. But after eons and eons of such peaceful, co-existential splendor, modern Homo sapiens made their appearance on the Eden-like world stage after a long period of evolution which had its humble beginnings in the primordial sludge.
It wasn’t to be long before this arrogant, greedy creature would scar vast swathes of the planet without a care for its other creatures or its vegetation. And now the earth is faced with the ultimate disaster of uncontrollable climate change, the apocalyptic consequences of which we are barely even able to conceive, but of which we can be certain will be devastating.
Kinda sends a chill down your spine, doesn’t it? If that’s not enough to make the kiddies pull the sheets over their heads at night trembling in fear, then what is? Well, maybe an article in the UK Telegraph on Feb. 25, 2007, which featured this headline: Secret report: Terror threat worst since 9/11.”The article said that the director general of MI5 - the British intelligence service - has warned that there were 200 known networks involved in 30 terrorist plots, and it is thought there could be in excess of 2,000 British citizens involved.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Maurice
Well written and great perspective.
I would think children might be more frightened by the thought that Anna Nicole Smith could come back from the dead and eat them.
2 - Clavos
Good article.
Regarding the survey:
It's possible that the kids, having their teachers drilling the GW menace into their pointy little heads on a daily basis, connivingly (as kids are wont to be) figured out what answers they were expected to give.
Secondly, the real key to the results of the survey lie, I think, in the final sentence of the linked article:
The study marked Somerfield's drive to reduce the eight billion plastic bags wasted by UK households every year.
I've noticed that here in the US, grocery stores are enthusiastically jumping on the GW bandwagon and instituting "bring your own bag" policies.
I would love to see how much the average grocery store chain spends annually on bags...
3 - Roger Choate
Sensitive, thoughtful article
4 - Will
I'm a Britsh teenager, and I think the situation over here may be worse than any foreigners could expect! Entire Chemsistry lessons (and probbaly Geography lessons) are spent talking about global warming. Us young Britons are made to be really worried about it and with all the scaremongering, I'm not surprised that British children lose sleep over Global Warming. Then again, Britain could apparently enter a big freeze, which'd be fun, for a while, but would screw up the world economy big time, considering that Britain would be New Eskimo Land, and we're still pretty big players in this world of ours. No wonder everybody wants Britain to be scared, it probably boils down to selfish capitalism-"make those British kids lose sleep over it, ya hear me?" as the Gulf Stream would cease to function, and where most countries would be much hotter, we'd be much, much colder, and we'd cease to function as a developed country!
Will.
P.S: Check my posts in the Zelda:Twilight Princess review in the gaming section.
5 - Will
Gosh, that comment I made was actually very, very relavent to the article, and expand upon it quite well, especially the second paragraph, although it completely contradicts that paragraph! I hadn't actually read that tuff about England's soon to be sunnier weather, and the stuff about the economy, when I wrote my stuff about how cold it'll be over here and my stuff about the economy. How wonderfully relavent. Also, in said Chemistry lesson, we watched Al Gore talk on Youtube. Do I have a psychic connnection to the author or something?
Also, what's wrong with Britain's weather, that stuff the Romans said about it when they first cam is poppycock! Better a bit of rain than stupidly hot sun like in the USA!
Will,
Check out my posts on the Zelda Twilight Princess review under the gaming section.
6 - Will
When I said the seond paragraph in the above post, I meant the last paragraph.
Will.
7 - Driveby
We have raised a world of pussies and girlee men. Drop the hat and our little weak kneeded ritalin fead kids are taken by a soccer mom for counseling. Third world countries wouldn't know counseling from a frecking Aardvark. Ladies, men hero's are a thing of the past unless you teach your little so called he-man or he girl to hunt polor bears. What a society of frecking whimps. Keep your cheeks closed tight unless a terrorist desires to penetrate. Now thats a bad dream for the little pricks. Fuck the polor bears. How would life be different if these white man killers were gong? Like who gives a rats ass.
8 - RJ Elliott
Just throwing this out there:
Let's say the "Global Warming" theory is 100% accurate, and temperatures are indeed going to rise a couple degrees over the next century due to human activity. Did you know that this would actually be BENEFICIAL in some regards?
For instance, a huge portion of the Earth's landmass is in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (think Canada and Siberia). Currently, it's really f**king cold there most of the year. Because of that, the growing season is very short, and relatively few crops can be grown there. Also, these areas are very sparsely populated, due to the unpleasantly cold climate and high costs of home/business heating during the seemingly-endless "winter" months (like, from September to April).
So, if the Earth's temperature goes up a few degrees, these massive regions will become much more productive for both agriculture and industry. And actually living there would become possible for people who aren't Inuit or part-caribou.
And, of course, even "worst-case" scenarios don't predict this (gasp!) two degree temperature rise to come about tomorrow. Nope, it'll take many decades before it happens. So no need to worry about the insta-flooding of our coastal cities. There's plenty of time to follow the Dutch lead and build dikes, or just move inland a few hundred meters.
And remember this: The latest UN "Global Warming" report said that there is NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP IT anyway, and even is the USA ratified the Kyoto Treaty, and actually met its goals (which the EU has failed to do), the temperature would STILL increase over the next 100 years, only a little less so. Of course, these predictions are all based on computer models that were designed by human beings with incomplete data...oftentimes the same human beings who were scare-mongering about "Global Cooling" just a few decades ago.
So, sleep tight British children. There's probably nothing to worry about, but even if there is, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, and worrying about things you cannot change isn't exactly a healthy pastime.
9 - RJ Elliott
Another thought:
The "Global Warming" mania has become an excuse for people to attack the US and it's successful capitalistic economy. But when was the last time you heard about Brazil's overtly anti-environmental policies? (Probably never, because Brazil is an authoritarian, corrupt, socialist third-world shit-hole, and so they are not to be criticized...)
Brazil is encouraging its rapidly-growing population to move away from the coast and into the Amazonian jungle. They are encouraging people to cut down the Amazon rainforest, and plant f**king soybeans in its place. Brazil is also one of the main cattle-raising countries in the world, and the UN report cites cow farts (I am not making this up) as a major contributor to greenhouse gases.
So, fewer trees, more methane-laden cow farts, and a population explosion. Why doesn't Brazil get criticized? Maybe because they have a leftist President who dislikes President Bush? Maybe because they are a "developing" country and are therefore somehow exempt from criticism (just like India and Red China are exempt from Kyoto)?
10 - zingzing
you are such a fool. what, exactly, would be the harm in realizing that we DO have an impact on the earth's climate, and if we DON'T try to do something about it, it will affect the way we live?
we could do nothing, go on the way we live, and nothing would happen. fine. it's possible it's all paranoia.
or, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have less war, get better mileage on the cars we do drive and save a little money, reduce traffic by taking public transportation and have a nicer morning, save money on our electricity bills and spend it on music, make less trash by recycling and not step on broken bottles, reduce the amount of smoke and chemicals we pump into the air and get some nice blue sky days, have more trees and take a nice walk in the city, etc, etc, etc.
there is NO bad side to trying to do what is right. none. even if our current way of living doesn't make earth unlivable, making this a greener planet makes it a better place anyway.
it's really stupid to say that we have no impact on the earth. obviously, we do. the people on either side of this issue are pretty passionate about it, and therefore, neither side is to be believed with absolute faith. but one side (environmentalists) say we should do what we can, and in doing so we either make this place better, or we save it from destruction. on your side of the fence, we have laziness that doesn't kill us, or laziness that does.
and, economically, shouldn't we put some time and money into new technologies? what's the harm in that? even if old technologies still flourish, and we keep burning coal and diverting rivers and all that, doesn't a whole new business sector mean more money, more jobs and more wealth? technology fuels our economy. so when some new need opens up, shouldn't we exploit it?
(and london may warm up, which would be nice, but amsterdam will disappear, so where will all your little london children go to get fucked up and laid as college students? hmm? ever think about that?)
11 - Clavos
zing sez,
we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have less war, get better mileage on the cars we do drive and save a little money, reduce traffic by taking public transportation and have a nicer morning, save money on our electricity bills and spend it on music, make less trash by recycling and not step on broken bottles, reduce the amount of smoke and chemicals we pump into the air and get some nice blue sky days, have more trees and take a nice walk in the city, etc, etc, etc.
And best of all, we would fuck Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and the Saud family!
and, economically, shouldn't we put some time and money into new technologies? what's the harm in that? even if old technologies still flourish, and we keep burning coal and diverting rivers and all that, doesn't a whole new business sector mean more money, more jobs and more wealth? technology fuels our economy. so when some new need opens up, shouldn't we exploit it?
Absolutely true. And, if we go at it like we did the man on the moon project, we can do it fairly quickly. The whole world (except the above-mentioned oil producers) will benefit.
What could be cooler? Heh.
12 - RJ Elliott
zingzing,
Those are all nice ideals, if a bit naive. But my point isn't that we should be more environmentally-friendly; my point is that we don't need to be lied to and scare-mongered (by our own governments!) into believing that a "Climate Armageddon" is right around the corner, and that it's all American/Western capitalism's fault.
13 - RJ Elliott
"But my point isn't that we should be more environmentally-friendly"
should be:
"But my point isn't that we shouldn't be more environmentally-friendly"
I actually consider myself an environmentalist. For example, I support massive increases in taxpayer-funded R&D on alternative energy sources.
But I'm not going to buy into all the "Global Climate Change" paranoia and hyperbole (and double standards).
14 - zingzing
it's no use being insulted. we do more than our share of polluting, so i guess we are to blame for whatever it is that may come. who gives a fuck about being insulted anyway?
the facts look grim, and even if they are just scare-mongering, (and who benefits from this scare-mongering, i mean really,) i say let's err on the side of non-extinction.
plus, i hate heat. it sucks. makes you sweat and stink and be lazy.
15 - zingzing
and ideals, by their very nature, are naive. ideals don't exist, usually.
i'm just suggesting a direction to go in. if we move towards a greener planet, we will benefit in so many other ways. i can't see why anyone would have any problem with it.
16 - RJ Elliott
"if we move towards a greener planet, we will benefit in so many other ways. i can't see why anyone would have any problem with it."
We are moving towards a greener planet. Have been for decades now, at least in the West. The countries that are still pumping out the truly nasty pollutants are Red China, India, and the other developing countries. And those countries are EXEMPT from Kyoto...
Anyway, I came to the conclusion that we need to protect our environment based on facts, not on hyperbole, scare-mongering, and/or outright lies. I oppose lying and distortions, even if it's supposedly done "for a good cause." I especially oppose lying and distortions when it comes from a bunch of hypocritical political types (like Al Gore) who seem to have a beef with the free market.
17 - zingzing
cut the political bullshit. we need to move much faster. we aren't doing shit but playing lip service. stop blaming other countries for now. we should just do our own part as a country, as we can't control other countries. we should take care of ourselves before we start ordering other countries about.
they're exempt? what about us? do we follow those kyoto? until we do something, how can we expect them to?
how do you know they are lying or distorting? how can you say "we need to protect our environment" if you believe what's being said is a lie? what facts do you have? these are serious questions, not accusations.
and how do balance the "free market" and protecting the environment? what makes you think they are opposed?
18 - RJ
"we need to move much faster."
Says who? Al Gore?
"we aren't doing shit but playing lip service."
Not true. The US is moving rapidly towards more environmentally-friendly energy usage. There are tax deductions for hybrid cars and solar power panels for homes, more investment in clean coal, and a push towards more nuclear power (which has zero "greenhouse gas" emissions). Bush was in Brazil just a couple days ago trying to make ethanol usage more available and mainstream in the US. So the idea that we are merely "paying lip service" is just plain ignorant.
"stop blaming other countries for now."
Uh-huh. Red China, Brazil, and India can destroy the environment however they want, and we shouldn't dare criticize them, right? Fuck that! If this is truly a GLOBAL PROBLEM, it would be moronic to place ALL the blame at the feet of the US, when other countries are not doing their part to SOLVE the problem!
19 - zingzing
""stop blaming other countries for now."
Uh-huh. Red China, Brazil, and India can destroy the environment however they want, [...] it would be moronic to place ALL the blame at the feet of the US, when other countries are not doing their part to SOLVE the problem!"
where is this red china? is it near regular china? people's republic of?
they obviously are doing the world no good. but as long as we don't sign kyoto, or make REAL efforts, like getting gas-guzzlers off the road, stopping the use of coal as energy, stopping companies from trading those credit thingies... LIFE-CHANGING efforts, not tax breaks... we have no legs to stand on. we need to take care of our business before telling others what to do. that's not putting the blame completely on us, it's doing what we need to do, and being a good example.
once we are on the path to real change, then, and only then, should we be concerned with what others are doing.
i am certainly not putting all the blame on the us. it is a global problem. but shouldn't we do what is necessary?
augh. i'm having a hard time expressing myself correctly. we aren't totally to blame. we share the blame with the rest of the world, even if we are a pretty big source of pollution. we should lead by example, not bullying and hypocrisy.
and i say that we are merely paying lip-service at this point. we are taking small, tentative steps forwards, but a lot of our energy policies and our continuing and growing use of oil and coal mean that we are really marching in place.
20 - RJ
zingzing,
Red China (you know, the part with over a billion people that's communist) is explicitly EXEMPT from Kyoto. And as a dictatorial regime, they have absolutely NO INTEREST in making their "carbon footprint" smaller...in fact, they want the exact opposite!
"stopping the use of coal as energy"
Heh. Let's say the US stopped using coal for energy tomorrow. There are some important questions that need to be answered. Like, where would we get the energy to make up for it?
Nuclear? Good luck convincing the environmental crowd to accept dozens of new nuclear power plants. And even if you did, there's always the NIMBY crowd to stifle development...
Solar? Doesn't produce energy at night. Or on cloudy days. Takes up a lot of space. Can't easily be stored.
Ethanol? Isn't Bush doing that, like, RIGHT NOW???
Wind? Go ask the Kennedys...
So...you can see that we have no easy replacement for coal powered plants. Maybe, then, we should just go without? And let diabetics die because we can't afford to keep their insulin cool? Let the elderly freeze to death in the Northern states during the winter, because they lack home heating? Let the elderly die of heat stroke in the Southern states during the summer, because they lack air conditioning? Hey, that sort of thing happens in "green" Europe every year...so let's export the misery to the US!
Oh, and if the US stopped using coal, the price of this commodity would fall greatly, meaning the Red Chinese could afford to buy (and burn) even more of it! You could prevent this, of course, by limiting supply. But in doing so, you would have to reduce US production of this energy source. So you would be creating a vast number of unemployed people in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and some Western states. But, hey, the environment is worth it, right???
No, the US is not going to kill its own economy and its own people just to give the Red Chinese a comparative advantage. Welcome to the real world.
21 - STM
There is a dreadful recurring nightmare being experienced by many Australian children at the moment: a bizarre apparition of US President George W.Bush in cowboy hat, boots and a sheriff's badge comes to them in the middle of the night, promising them all the good things they've ever wanted - if they'll only stick with him and do exactly as he asks.
While George is doing his pea-and-thimble tricks, and enlightening them about America's close, 150-year alliance with Japan, Australian PM John Howard arrives and begins to chomp away at their ankles, removing tasty little tidbits like workplace rights that had taken a century to put in place through the courts.
He tells them that his new American-style industrial relations policy, "WorkChoices", means that when they grow up and go to work, they'll have more choice. But somewhere in their tiny heads, even children know that employers are only interested in paying as little as they have to to young people and that WorkChoices = NoChoices.
A bit later, Tony Blair turns up mumbling about Weapons of Mass Destruction, but not really doing very much at all, and asking: "Where the bloody hell am I."
Then the kids wake up, and are really frightened.
Nah, just kidding ....
22 - zingzing
"... as a dictatorial regime [china] have absolutely NO INTEREST in making their "carbon footprint" smaller...in fact, they want the exact opposite!"
what for? why do you say that? why... don't get it. not sure where you're going with that one. the chinese want the world to end... yes... that will really work out for them. "we rule over nothing! nothing!!! hahahaha." yeah, next.
"Like, where would we get the energy to make up for [the lack of coal-powered energy]?"
that's what i mean by "stopping." i don't mean tomorrow. i mean find another way.
"Ethanol? Isn't Bush doing that, like, RIGHT NOW???"
oh, ha...
"So...you can see that we have no easy replacement for coal powered plants."
nope. we're not going to be left with any easy choices.
"And let diabetics die because we can't afford to keep their insulin cool?"
huh? random...
"Let the elderly freeze to death in the Northern states during the winter, because they lack home heating?"
let them eat cake.
"Let the elderly die of heat stroke in the Southern states during the summer, because they lack air conditioning?"
CAKE! (just thought i'd answer how you think i oughta.)
"Hey, that sort of thing happens in "green" Europe every year...so let's export the misery to the US!"
hrm. yeah, it don't happen here... no... wake up.
"...this commodity would fall greatly, meaning the Red Chinese could..."
what's your problem with china? why do you HAVE TO refer to it as "red" china? what's up with that? "china" is quicker. less letters. what are you doing, admiring colors?
"So you would be creating a vast number of unemployed people in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and some Western states. But, hey, the environment is worth it, right???"
well, eventually, yes. right now, it might suck, but i'm not advocating ease. am i, now?
"No, the US is not going to kill its own economy and its own people just to give the Red Chinese a comparative advantage. Welcome to the real world."
yep. and the real world is going to burn trying to keep up with the economy. i'm trying to say we should create a new economy, one that doesn't consist of burning fossil fuels. technology. it's the new wave! ride the new wave... let it wash up on the shore, dude... wow... woah... look at it sparkle...
"red chinese" ...really, what's up with that? you got something against chinese people? do you know any? are you sure they are what you think they are? they ain't red, i'll tell you that. (kind of bigoted, don't you think, white boy?)
23 - zingzing
why do you think china is our enemy?
why do you think us doing our part to protect the environment gives china an advantage over us?
why, even if that were true, would that really matter?
do you think china created global warming in order to get some sort of economic advantage over us?
really?
24 - zingzing
woo, boy. goldmine:
(from r.j.'s website, which should stick to sports... even though he sucks at that too...)
"The opponents of such an action have many complaints. They say such a hostile move would fracture the world-wide coalition against terror,"
point-us
"especially with regards to the Arab and Muslim worlds, Russia, and Europe."
point-us
"They say Saddam has been defanged by a decade of sanctions and is no longer a threat."
half point. (you can have it--it really won't matter.)
"They say the potential for massive civilian casualties is too high."
point-us
"They say Saddam would let loose weapons of mass
destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, and possibly a radioactive “dirty bomb”, against US-led coalition forces and neighboring
countries."
hrm. half point, although we'll hold off judgment on that one, eh? let's see who drops the first bomb.
"They say eliminating Saddam would either lead to someone even worse taking over, or create a “power vacuum”, leading to chaos and turmoil, and possibly strengthening Iraq’s neighbor Iran, which like Iraq is a charter member of President Bush’s “axis of exil”."
bam! nailed it, didn't you?!
"However, on each and every point they are in error."
hrm. 4 our of 6 definitely "their" (us) way, the others... a little up for grabs. on a bad day, "they" were right on "each and every" point... on a good day, you're only 2/3rds wrong.
"If we made it policy to wait for their full support before taking action, we’d still be haggling over what measures to take against the Taliban, and the people of Afghanistan would be living under totalitarianism to this day."
and back they go into warfare... so much better, eh? what do these people want, huh?
"If and when the US decides to strike against Saddam, America's allies will make their usual
objections, but in the end will follow our lead."
yep, and like little sheep, they will leave us to our own dirty business when we prove we're fucking stupid.
"Second, the idea that Saddam is no longer a threat to the US or his neighbors is ludicrous."
nice cop-out. i like the "or his neighbors" part of the u.s. "self-defense" argument. it's the smartest part.
"He also has a long history of attempting to build weapons of mass destruction."
"attempting to" is another nice little phrase. wow. and he gave them all away to syria. how convenient.
"in defiance of international law"
oh, good god, don't say that. what are you going to do, bomb the white house over breaking international law?
"In those four years, who knows what hellish weapons his scientists have managed to build?"
the hell of the road-side! and iraq had to get them from another, "more advanced" country, right? oh, god, it goes on...
"A nuclear weapon might not be too far off."
mmhmm. where have we heard this before, i mean after... oh god, here we go again!
"While such deaths are a tragedy, they are largely avoidable by the use of “smart bombs”."
yeah. okay. what are we talking about here? (20-20, bitch.)
"Besides, as horrible as even limited “collateral damage” is, it is certainly preferable to the wholesale slaughter of millions of American civilians that would take place if Saddam gets his hands on a nuclear weapon."
which he didn't, and was no where close to... unlike his neighbor, but his neighbor didn't escaped daddy bush, now did he?
"And those innocent Iraqis who die will have given their lives so that their fellow countrymen and women could live free from oppression."
great people, eh? one-of-a-kind, i say. giving up their lives to our bullets for their countrymen and their dead children... oh, their future is looking bright today! look at them go! go, corpse, go! take off that towel! look into the sun, you dead heathen! look at the bright new day we have laid out before you and smile, YOU FUCKING EXPENDABLE SLIME, SMILE, I FUCKING TELL YOU--SMILE AND ROT YOU FUCKING BAG OF BONES!
"Will Saddam use all his hideous weapons of mass destruction on US troops and/or neighboring countries if it becomes obvious he is about to lose power? The answer to that might very well be yes, but this is a lose-lose situation."
nope. hole in the ground. he never had wmds. drr.
"US military forces will already have been equiped [sic] properly to deal with such threats."
oh, ha. they don't even have the armor to protect from a regular old bomb, much less a gas attack or a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb or a... oh i'm sure you thought he had something worse.
"Quite frankly, it is unimaginable that someone worse than Saddam could be found to take power."
ahh, yeah, that sectarian violence... forgot about that one, didn't we? uncontrolled sect-on-sect warfare... so much better. it's like a warm bath. very sectsy.
"By removing Saddam from power, we can nudge the new leader, whoever he or she is, towards democracy. Not only is that good for Iraqis, but it would serve as an example of how other nations in the Arab and Muslim worlds can be governed by the people, not an elite few."
ahh, the dream. brilliant, isn't it? unfortunately, instead of any "nudging," we used GUNS. and bombs and helicopters and occupation and martial law and really, really bad planning and FUCKED IT ALL UP.
"The coalition against terror will survive."
yep. american republicans, fighting a war on an idea. good job, boys. keep it up. maybe you'll kill your own self doubt one day. there ya go...
"Civilian casualties will be minimal in any military campaign."
hrm. what do you call minimal? do minimal casualties turn up by the dozens? do they lie in the streets for weeks?
"Saddam’s regime is getting closer to acquiring a nuclear device every day."
i'm getting closer to blowing up the sun every day. isn't going to happen anytime soon. take me out, fuckers.
"Democratic reforms can be instituted in Iraq for the benefit of its citizens and as an example to the world."
and what an example we set. look at the middle east, rising up, taking control of their own destiny, no longer paying attention to their warmongering leaders! seeing the bright new day that is peace and wondering, just wondering, at the brilliance of america... oh, look at it... that shining example... that country without strife... that... oh, fuck it.
"The answer to the dilemma facing the nation today is clear : The US should topple Saddam from power, and do it soon."
five years later: YOU ARE WRONG.
(i'd take that particular essay down. i'd also take a good look at your communications class grades. xoxo)
25 - zingzing
ahem. so, you've been wrong before. and the middle east is fucked, eh? now think of that on a global scale. we should do the RIGHT thing this time, not the WRONG thing.
(like blame some ficticious country like "red china," who is trying to push global warming on us so it can get cheaper coal... oh yeah, that's it...)