"If only gay sex caused global warming" is not only the most humorously titled, but one of the most psychologically and sociologically astute analyses of global warming I've ever seen in the confines of a newspaper op-ed.
Gay sex and global warming 22
-
Posted 2:48 AM on 2 Jul 2006
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Related Stories
Energy efficiency and sex
Umbra advises on population
Ask Umbra’s musical advice for sweeping toxics from your sex life
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 9:39 pm
01 Jul 2006
But how really can this be considered acceptable?:
<<Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.>>
Of course there exist straight people who find the thought of gay sex viscerally repulsive (hopefully a diminishing minority), to the same degree as most sensitive and morally balanced people of all sorts would find a custom of eating kittens (hopefully a large majority). And sure, there exist straight people, perhaps especially straight men, who oddly find the thought of gay sex as challenging to their manhood as is flag-burning.
I would have hoped that such benighted attitudes were held by fewer and fewer people. And I would have hoped that education in true moral values, and in sensitivity to what our responsibilities are to one another, were on the rise in our society.
But, oh no, I seem to be majorly deceived, don't I.
It is inconceivable to me, how this LA Times writer can include gay sex at all in the same category with so obviously facetious and sarcastic an offense as "moral threats to our species, such as flag burning," as well as with the unimaginably monstrous, and so ghoulishly humorous, "practice of eating kittens." How in the world is gay sex anything like those other things? Why does the writer think they are somehow, somewhere similar? Why does the writer assume his readers will accept they are similar?
People who burn US flags in protest are nowadays very few, apparently, and pretty archaic. People who dine on kittens perhaps are out there, but are generally unheard of.
But people who engage in gay sex really exist, and are rather numerous. And the great majority of us are harmless, even boring; the great majority of us live in places where our full rights as citizens are not recognized; and the great majority of us just wish to receive those rights, and otherwise to be left alone.
And it hurts to be dragged forth as part of some environmentalist joke -- that is, as an object of mockery, however oblique, among people who we might have thought were our friends and allies.
"Railing against" gay people is no frivolous remark. Whether or not gay sex is connected to global warming, gay people are constantly railed against. "Protesters would be massing in the streets": No, they would be hunting us down and hanging us from tree limbs and lamp posts.
If my presence, as a gay man, living with a gay man (to whom I was legally married in a court in Montreal, not an uncivilized city), in a remarkably stable and placid household, has nauseated or angered or disgraced anyone -- to use our esteemed writer's words -- , well, tough, here we are, deal with it.
Oh, and on another note: Happy Independence Day Weekend.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:37 am
02 Jul 2006
Effing brilliant!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:43 am
02 Jul 2006
Tell 'em canis!
And furthermore: Apple pie, motherhood, and Chevrolet have done nothing about the main problem here on planet earth (that causes all the other problems), overpopulation. Gay sex has.
I rest my case.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:36 am
02 Jul 2006
The continuous dribble in the press about issues that make no sense in a burning house has my attention, and that of a few journalists.
I have traveled to ask friends if they know about melting methane, and they do not. Why? This problem lies at the feet of the press.
A third generation Republican friend thinks that the second red spot on Jupiter is proof global warming is not anthropogenic.
Crusaders and terrorists: Global warming means there will be no World Trade Center, no Caliphate in Baghdad, no Iran, no Israel, no Holy places, no democracy, no enlightenment.
Get real. Burning fossil fuels is a crime against God and humanity. Nothing else matters.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:11 am
02 Jul 2006
There's plenty of homophobia out there -- no need to find it around every corner.
Grist: Dude, we are that frog.
Permalink
headsetoptions Posted 8:28 am
02 Jul 2006
hso @ headsetoptions.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:57 am
02 Jul 2006
First of all, the headline makes the connection between gay sex and global warming.
Secondly, CanisCandida is absolutely correct, the very idea of putting gay sex in a list with only two other things 1) flag burning and 2) killing kittens, well cheez louise, doesn't that make your blood boil?
Why do we assume that gay sex elicits more of a "visceral activity" than any other kind of sex? Oh, because we aren't gay? Well, I'm not a sadist, either, so why not use SM or BD or sex between fat white heterosexual Americans. I suspect that I can find plenty of sexual practices in the world that cause "visceral" reactions, although why I would look at them is beyond me. And why not use "straight" sex? Might it not cause, oh horrors, a visceral reaction among law abiding moral homosexuals?
Given the long list of choices the author could have made, the choice he did make is telling. And not in a good way.
David, (this is intended to make you think, not insult you, if I fail, then I am deeply regretful), look at your remark about finding homophobia around every corner. Now imagine telling a woman this about her complaint about sexism, or a minority about racism. Do you see that this would alienate people? And might be interpreted as being insensitive?
Gay people in America suffer enough pain and sorrow from their enemies, why would people who should be their allies turn on them?
HeadSetOptions, the point is that the author's choice of language has insulted and will alienate people. The fact that people immediately notice this and some object strongly, indicates that the author has foolishly weakened his message by including "exclusive" language. Anytime your language (or mine!!) is crafted in such a way that we insult, belittle or demean others, we fail.
The author of this article failed. He should have stayed in bed and done visceral things to himself.
patrick
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:21 pm
02 Jul 2006
The fact is, gay sex does elicit a visceral reaction of disgust among a large swath of the populace. It doesn't elicit any such reaction from me. I think it's silly to feel that way. And I think, even if one does feel that way, it's silly to make policy on that basis.
Look at the arguments against gay marriage. They are laughable on their face. Completely illogical. The only thing driving opposition to gay marriage, at the end of the day, is that visceral reaction.
Now, the author of this article is simply pointing out the existence of that reaction. He is pointing out the fact that we focus inordinately on things that elicit such reactions. He is point out the fact that it is difficult to focus on things that are not done by humans, that are abstract and distant, that are slow-moving -- like global warming. He is lamenting that fact.
Nowhere in all that is there any conceivable moral condemnation of homosexual sex. To think that is to miss the entire damn point.
Yes, homosexuals (and women, and minorities) suffer plenty of discrimination. I'd be the last to argue otherwise. But when we start reading discrimination into the very mention of gay sex, we lose our ability to think clearly about other things.
Perhaps the author should have chosen something less charged. But the whole point was to explain why gay sex is charged, and why global warming isn't. WTF is gained by tsk tsking the author for not being exquisitely careful of our finely honed liberal ability to take offense? Why not try to learn something from his perspective?
Grist: Dude, we are that frog.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:46 pm
02 Jul 2006
It seems to me then that the author failed, because I didn't get at all that he was explaining why "gay sex is charged", I got the why global warming isn't (smile).
So, I went back and read it. He explains nothing to indicate "why gay sex is charged". He merely says "Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets."
He is in fact equating gay sex morally with eating kittens. This is quite clear. And it is disgusting.
Language matters, as does the language choices we make. There is a reason for "liberals" to speak carefully. That is to avoid offending people, and also to recognize the power of language to both hurt and heal.
Is it okay to call Grist "the home of Eco-terrorism" or make fun of Al Gore for being "stiff and lacking human qualities"?
Of course not. The term "eco-terrorism" is used to damage and harm the environmental movement, it is not particularly discriptive. And when it is used, it is used for a reason.
Various folks in Blogland have written about how the MSM used language to mock Al Gore, and thus render his message effective. Is that okay? Should we all just sit and laugh at him?
When people make choices about who to mock, or who to discredit, they use language that appeals to their audience, they make fun of "outs" or "others", because they believe this helps them connect with their audience.
The MEM has a problem reaching out to people who don't look like it (and who belong to other classes, and have different value systems). Part of the problem may be the difficulty the MEM has in displaying sensitivity to the needs and feelings of those they wish to ally with them.
As to trying to understand the author's perspective, that is the point. When you start off by insulting part of your audience, you lose the ability to communicate with them. You fail.
We are having a lot of trouble getting people involved in working against global warming. Why would we endorse language that insults and alienates anyone? We need more allies, not less.
patrick
Permalink
jm Posted 5:51 am
03 Jul 2006
This is a piece of tongue-in-cheek comedy meant for the mainstream. I don't think it merits reading into it to find offense. The author isn't equating gay sex with eating kittens. He implies that many in America do, however, and that is part of the problem.
I'm am against offending for the sake of offending, but I also don't believe it's necessary to scrutinize every little detail to avoid offending someone. I have a ton of flaws, and enjoy self-deprecating humor. In fact, I find that the ability to laugh at myself wins quite a few friends and helps disarm those who might otherwise not like or be offended by someone like me.
His jabs were aimed at the conservative right. He also may have offended a few on the far left. There is no hatred being preached here folks.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 8:04 am
03 Jul 2006
...against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.
I believe that the author was clearly trying to accuse people of being concerned about non-issues, such as flag burning. He equated flag burning with a threat to our species, equally as he implied that gay sex and eating kittens are exactly the same... Are they?
He may have poorly worded it for people who read too much into phrasing, but the point is also that there are plenty of people in the US that are actually protesting gay sex/marriage, without any other issue attached to it. Eating kittens, I believe was just an attempt to compare it to another thing that may or may not be terrible, depending on the cultural background.
For example, canis is actually guilty of calling a very large proportion of Asian population (probably not in US) that do eat cats, and quite possibly kittens. By passing judgement which is inherent to himself, he committed a foul (sorry, too much Wold Cup) that is exactly equal to the faux pas that the author has done.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:29 am
03 Jul 2006
Writers, musicians, painters, performing arts, journalists, are better communicators. I get a sense of scientists befuddled with bottled-up panic. Where are the artists?
Cool Melissa Etheridge song at the end of "An Inconvenient Truth".
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:04 pm
03 Jul 2006
Thanks to Amazing and Patrick, for understanding where I am coming from. Patrick has brought up what I consider by far the most important point, which has nothing actually to do with the sensibilities of gay people: The satire shoots itself in the foot. As it were, the satire commits an act of friendly fire. More below.
Sunflower is/are a bit over my head, as usual, but always interesting. "Get real. Burning fossil fuels is a crime against God and humanity. Nothing else matters." I agree with the sense of urgency. "Crime" probably should be replaced by "sin." And non-human animals should definitely be added to God and humanity. "Nothing else matters" is surely false, and no doubt Sunflower did not mean to say it quite like that. Are he/she/they implying that matters of social justice do not matter?
I am glad that our New York friend Atreyger brought up the matter of aelurophagy (cat-eating), and whether it should be allowed as a traditional cultural practice. I am not a moral relativist myself. Moral relativism, truly so called, does not really exist, pace Pope Benedict XVI. Refusing to criticize people of other nations and cultures for carrying out their traditions, e.g. clitoridectomy, and daughter-slaughter, the "honor-killing" of young women who have been rightly or wrongly linked sexually in public opinion with men to whom they are not married, is a case of moral sloth, i.e. laziness, and not by any means something required by those of us who value the idea of tolerance.
Whether any people traditionally eat dogs and cats, I do not know. It would not surprise me, if it happens. But usually carnivorous terrestrial mammals and birds are not considered good eating. (And, for what it is worth, Benedict is supposedly a cat-lover.)
Anyway, the alleged inhumanity of East Asians, regarding aelurophagy, is a bit of a red herring. The world of the Harvard psychologist is pretty clearly the US. And in that world, it is pretty clear what moral value must be attributed to the feeding upon kittens.
And then: David Roberts wrote this:
<<It's an extremely strained reading of the piece that would find Daniel Gilbert drawing a moral analogy between gay sex and eating kittens.>>
(For all you alliteration fans, who truly understand the rules of alliteration, "extremely strained" is alliterative. And "extremely strained Strauss" would win the deep-dish Strudel.) Sorry if I was not clear. Let me correct that now. I have no idea what David Gilbert has in that head of his, still less in his heart. Inasmuch as he was the Hand Writing the Words, he let pass a sentence in which gay sex and kitten-eating might be considered (not necessarily by him!, mind you, nor was he urging anyone to agree) morally equivalent. Any alleged strainedness in interpretation comes from David Roberts's prejudiced way of naturally interpreting that passage.
<<He is a professor of psychology,>>
God, David, why did you not add the obvious, "at Harvard"! But "Ipse dixit" does not fly since about the time of Galileo.
<<and pretty clearly intends to draw a psychological analogy -- both are human activities and solicit a visceral reaction, whereas global warming doesn't.>>
Right, that is perfectly clear, I entirely understand that, and commend him for making that point. If only he had done it in a less stupidly written shoot-in-the-foot way. In fact, he has done a disservice to those who are doing their best to mount an effective activist movement against global warming.
<<If anything, there's a hint of mockery about the absurdly prominent place homosexuality has taken in our national dialogue.>>
I have no idea what "absurdly prominent" means. If David is referring to, for example, the Republican legislature's attempts to advance a Constitutional amendment allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, then I agree with him, and only wish he had been more clear. And in that case, "hint of mockery" does not go nearly far enough in condemning what is outright homophobia (see below).
If, on the other hand, he is resenting the visibility of gay people on TV, as e.g. Ellen and Rosie, and "Will and Grace," and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" (not that I myself am an admirer of any of these people or programs; it is the principle that counts), then I would urge all my fellow Gristmill readers not to follow the otherwise admirable David Roberts in this regard.
<<There's plenty of homophobia out there -- no need to find it around every corner.>>
Yes indeed, and no indeed. I do not like the word "homophobia," and do not use it much. It is far too much used by my gay friends. Please note that I was not the first to use it on this thread. I did not accuse anyone of it. And I shall not use it now, as a charge against either David Roberts or Professor David Gilbert of Harvard University, the LA Times writer.
I do not believe that either David Roberts or David Gilbert dislikes gay people; nor do I believe that either thinks that "gay sex" is evil, and should be stamped out; nor do I believe that either of them wants other people to think such things.
That said, there is plenty of insensitivity out there too. I understand exactly what the insensitive JM is meaning, who says the LA Times piece was written "for the mainstream." White? Straight? People with money in their pocket? People with a home to go home to? What must I do to join this "mainstream"? Buy a house? With a swimming-pool? Marry a woman?
Consider the way African-Americans have been presented in American cinema and TV. Stepin Fetchit, Hattie McDaniels (much beloved minor heroine in that American epic "Gone With the Wind"), Jack Benny's servant Rochester, e.g., were all extremely sympathetic characters, but were presented to people who understood those characters to be different from themselves.
Perhaps in the age of Flip Wilson, Nipsy Russell, Archie Bunker vs. George Jefferson, and Redd Foxx, a period in American popular culture that is otherwise much mocked lately, there was a sense emerging that the "mainstream" and its attitudes can change.
So let us strive for a change today, regarding gay sensibilities. The problem with so much "humor," including "satire," is that it is intended for a particular, exclusive readership or audience. Characters from excluded groups may figure as sympathetic; but in fact the way they are treated theatrically, in TV, in movies, etc., continues to exclude the minority groups to which they belong.
Remember all the "Brokeback Mountain" jokes on the late-night comics' shows. Leno, Letterman, et al., were obviously playing to a straight audience. Stinging to many gay listeners. Not because of anything overtly homophobic (it is indeed possible -- as I strongly suspect -- that some one of them, or more than one of them, said something that crossed the line, but let us let that go right now), but because the milieu was falsely assumed to be exclusively straight.
Ditto with the LA Times piece by the Harvard professor, and by David's odd defense of it.
"Satire" is indeed an ancient (Roman) and noble and effective art form. But if you are composing satirical works for the sake of a cause that is dear to you, you do not want to say something that may alienate potential allies. Don't you? Or, on the other hand, do you?
I am delighted with those who have written, a` la Sunflower, to the effect that sensitivity to gay matters is a distraction, what really matters is global warming. And I entirely agree! I did not bring up gay sex, did I, it was David's LA Times' Harvard psychologist, wasn't it. They were the distraction. David was the one who brought up this divisive issue, when he had absolutely no need to. Let us move on to a discourse in which matters of sexuality do not get mentioned, save (perhaps) in a positively appreciative way (and even then rarely).
<<Grist:>>
A bit of opacity here. One has no idea who exactly co-signs what David Roberts posts, with this title in italics.
<<Dude,>>
A better motto might be, e.g., E pluribus unum, or, Honi soit qui mal y pense. I think I wrote something about the much regrettable "Dude" on another thread. The word has inevitably the implication of a feckless lad, all alone, in a bedroom, with a mirror, and a stash of porn.
Male lad, I might add. The choice of vocative-case noun in this motto is definitely gender-exclusive, according to what I have heard of modern English usage.
<<we are that frog.>>
No. We are not that frog. You are not that frog. No one is that frog, save that frog itself.
Permalink
midnightowl Posted 4:36 am
05 Jul 2006
And I personally think what he said is true. People would rise up against global warming if what caused it is morally reprehensible and offensive (not that gay sex is bad, but you know how some conservatives, hardcore Catholics, or "moralists" think), and also if what's causing it directly affect people (ie. "Global warming is caused by the fact that you weren't given a raise by your oppressive boss").
www.tblbiz.info
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:02 pm
05 Jul 2006
I entirely agree with your summary of the essay in question, and with the essay's basic point as you present it. All I am saying really is that style matters, and the author of the essay betrayed a certain insensitivity in a stylistic attempt at humor.
It puzzles me that since we all agree that the global warming crisis is a terrific danger, requiring a common effort to deal with it, we yet cannot agree that divisive language, however klutzily or inadvertently used, should be rejected.
I wish you had written the essay, in fact. Clearly you would have done a better job.
Permalink
midnightowl Posted 4:06 am
06 Jul 2006
If only he'd used some other words like "pedophiles", "rapists", or "corrupt politicians" though, or some other universally despised thing/people/issue, it would all be so much simpler.
www.tblbiz.info
Permalink
mihan Posted 5:38 am
10 Jul 2006
Generally, though, the piece doesn't really say much that's new, which is why I was unimpressed. People fight against threats that have a human face: if it doesn't, we'll blame someone---anyone. We are less threatened by things that happen gradually or "later": few young people think about retirement. We fight against things we perceive as morally reprehensible (though I fail to see what is not morally reprehensible about children dying of malnutrition). That's why our fine legislators are worrying about gay couples who want to register for china and not kids who get sick because they have to eat out of dumpsters.
As a side note, though, it's always entertaining to see/read defensive straight folks. Keep it coming!
Permalink
jm Posted 1:09 pm
15 Jul 2006
I do empathize with you greatly. At the same time, it's difficult for me to do so when you are twisting my words to frame me (directly or indirectly) as a racist/classist/homophobe. Frankly, I don't appreciate it.
You're obviously well-spoken and very educated. The one thing I do have trouble empathizing with is your profound negativity. I don't know you, and I don't know what you've suffered in your life; I will extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've had a far rockier time of life than I.
I resisted the urge to go negative; ultimiately, you and I are going to have to agree or the Republicans will still control the Congress in January.
Thanks
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:15 pm
15 Jul 2006
yes, I do most certainly and gladly agree with you on your final point.
Please, since the idea has bothered you, let me make clear that I do not consider you a racist, or a classist. Or a homophobe either. Nor do I think the author of the satirical essay is a homophobe. (Though many of my gay friends would disagree.)
I did call you "insensitive," and I meant it. But I concede now that that was not entirely fair: I do not at all believe that the insensitivity in question is uniquely, personally yours, and no one else's. And indeed if that is what my words suggested, then I failed to make my point. So I offer you my sincere apologies, and hope you will accept them.
What really bothered me, you may remember, was the concept of the acceptability of "writing for the mainstream." Sadly, I observe that this concept remains uncontroversial in many quarters in our society. The recent example that I gave was the period of "Brokeback"-related jokes in the stand-up humor of such as Jay Leno and David Letterman: straight people, talking to a presumed audience of straight people (the "mainstream," I guess), about gay people. The older example was the regular practice of Hollywood: white people, telling stories about white people, to an audience assumed to be essentially white (the "mainstream"), though these stories may include subsidiary characters who are black (as in "Gone With the Wind"), or Native American (as in most Westerns -- and if the Native Americans had speaking parts, they were often played by Euro-American actors).
It seems to be the case that "writing for the mainstream" is less and less acceptable in Hollywood and TV since the 1960s, so far as racial groups are concerned. Or at least, it is not done in so simple a way as it was in the past; there seems to be in place a sense that the special perspectives of members of racial minorities must be acknowledged, and must never be treated with disrespect.
I would have hoped that the gay minority had made the same progress. Apparently I am wrong to count on it entirely in this community.
As I wrote before, I accuse the writer of the satirical piece of "klutziness," a Yiddishism which is perhaps not yet a term-of-art. I mean by it, an inadvertent choice of expression which unhappily distracts from the writer's main point. No, he is not a homophobe. Yes, if he is truly committed to the anti-global-warming cause, he has a responsibility to mind his language better.
On what the Congress looks like in January: Yes, it is indeed a cause worth fighting for, all of us shoulder to shoulder, that the Republicans should loose their majority in at least one chamber. But I do not trust the Democrats to refrain from doing nasty things to their constituency, in order to present themselves as "centrists." They seem to be getting ready to chuck their so far pretty staunch opposition to drilling in ANWR; let us hope it does not come to that. In general, they have rarely or never spoken in public of their friendship for us environmentalists, and how important our causes are to them; and they might have been ready to chuck our entire constituency too, so much do we embarrass them apparently, had it not been for Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore's book and movie.
But we gay people know what it feels like, to be chucked by a false friend. Has any major Democrat stood up and declared his support of same-sex marriage? In the past few days, our rights have received some big legal blows, especially from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on the sweeping anti-same-sex-union amendment to the Nebraska constitution, and from the Supreme Court of New York, which had an especially bitter, "Et tu, Brute?" quality. So is it any wonder that we are feeling increasingly friendless, following a period when we thought we had friends we could count on in several quarters?
So sure, dear JM, let's agree, let's unite, and oust the Republican majority. But please do not expect me to love the Democrats from the bottom of my heart, who have no high regard for my civil rights, and are happy I should remain at second-class-citizen status.
Whether you wish to continue to fault me for "negativity," for standing up for my rights, both under the law and in society, that is up to you.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:36 am
16 Jul 2006
Dear CanisCandida,
And here I always thought you were too positive! Too forgiving of the Democrats! Too kind to liberals (grin).
Dear JM,
Your posts (last and previous) provoked this reaction in me. It is not aimed at you personally (I don't know you), but rather at the composite forces represented by the ideas in your posts (any distortion of them is not intended to be YOU, so aplogies in advance!).
The problem with the stand together arguement is that is is always proposed by the white moderate Democratic Party shorty before elections. After the elections, they tend to disappear. And racial minorities, gays, environmentalists and all the leftists who bought that argument can't get their phone calls returned, or even have their existence acknowledged.
It does tend to lead to some bitterness. When the Democrats betray everyone until shortly before the next election, well, pardon us if we don't like it.
Part of the criticism for this opinion piece is that it reflects the values of the mainstream between elections (when there is no need to be nice to anyone outside the perceived majority).
Now it's getting closer to election, and "can't we all get along"? How much nicer people are when they need you!
I am currently registered in VA where I get to vote for the reactionary Webb to displace the insane Allen. Okay, vote "for" is a misnomer.
If Webb wins, many people will be cheering and yelling "We Won". I will be puking and wondering what in the hell have "We won".
I still think we could increase voter turnout if we put vomit buckets next to each voting booth.
patrick
Permalink
lorayoh Posted 8:19 pm
14 Mar 2007
However I think that time is ticking against us, so is there any other way to make everyone face the truth?
Permalink
savweb Posted 1:21 am
11 Feb 2008
Permalink