Is this an emergency?

Is global warming the moral equivalent of World War II? 27

From Al Gore to Lester Brown, writers concerned about preventing the worst of global warming have proposed that our "commitment will need to be of a scale comparable to what we did during World War II." But the parallels never go beyond a vague reference.

PBS is about to run a series, premiering this Sunday, called "The War," so it might be a good time to think a little more deeply about the connection.

There are two main questions that need to be asked: Is global warming -- or more generally, the assault on the biosphere, including the wholesale destruction of ecosystems and species -- an emergency, as was World War II? In other words, do we have to do something quickly? Second, what was done in World War II to meet the emergency, and what lessons can we learn from that response?

I'll start with the second question: the federal government virtually took over the economy during World War II. The U.S. had a tiny military -- I remember reading that the army was 17th in the world, behind Bulgaria -- and it had to be ramped up as quickly as possible. Believe it or not, the CEOs of the auto companies met with President Roosevelt and agreed not to make cars for the rest of the war. Instead, the car companies and the rests of the industrial sector set about to make tanks, planes, boats, bombs, guns, and bullets instead.

Can you imagine a U.S. president summoning the car companies into the Oval Office, forging an agreement to stop making automobiles for five years, and instead convincing them to pump out high-speed rail, light rail, trolley rail, and buses? Can you imagine construction companies agreeing to not put up any more single-family houses, but instead putting up Platinum LEED near-zero-emissions apartment buildings and commercial buildings, each with geothermal exchange systems for heating and cooling and solar roofs for electricity? What if road construction companies agreed not to pave any more space, and instead built the rails for the new rail systems? And what if the coal companies and nuclear energy companies agreed to work with GE and others to put up only wind power and solar thermal farms? What about ADM and ConAgra agreeing to help the agricultural sector eliminate the use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and factory farming?

Those more-than-unlikely scenarios would be the equivalent of "what they did in World War II." Not cap-and-trade or cap-and-auction, not carbon taxing, not fuel-efficiency standards. Can you also imagine what would have happened in World War II if Roosevelt had tried to fight the Japanese and Germans by raising a consumption tax so that a small percentage of the federal budget could be put into researching how to fight the Axis powers? Or tried to free up enough resources by increasing the efficiency of appliances and cars? Or perhaps they could have capped and traded military equipment? We'd either still be fighting in the Pacific, or my NYC-born parents would have wound up in concentration camps and you wouldn't have been able to read me rant about this.

So, are we in a true state of emergency? I'm currently reading Fred Pearce's new book, With Speed and Violence, and his warning signs have certainly been in the news, such as the thawing of the Soviet tundra and the melting of the Arctic, which are dangerous because of the positive feedback aspects of these changes. How many years do we have? Does James Hansen still think we have 10 years, or has it been a couple of years since then, so it's now more like eight? Do we need to start moving now? Or do we really have more like 20, or even 30 years?

If you think we really have to move now, I suggest you read up on the American economy during World War II, because it really is the best example of transforming an economy quickly -- and the government's investment in and direction of the economy was front and center.

Jon Rynn has published articles at SandersResearch.com, and Foreign Policy in Focus, has a chapter on green collar jobs in the new book “Mandate for Change” and is working on a forthcoming book for Praeger Press entitled “Manufacturing Green Prosperity”. He has a Ph.D. in Political Science and lives with his wonderful wife and amazing two boys in New Jersey.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 5:36 am
    21 Sep 2007

    Urgency and level of threatThere are two elements of 'emergency' to consider. One is urgency and the other is the level of danger.
    Starting with the second part, the possibility of runaway climate change certainly qualifies as extremely dangerous. If natural systems start releasing more carbon than they absorb, it could prove unstoppable.
    There certainly seems to be less urgency associated with stabilizing concentrations than with winning a war. At the same time, the costs of action are a lot lower if we start sooner. The risk of catastrophic outcomes is also reduced.
    While it may or may not be politically useful to describe climate change as an emergency, a reasonable case can be made that it justifies the same kind of effort normally directed at them.

    a sibilant intake of breath

    Permalink

  2. ngoddard Posted 6:36 am
    21 Sep 2007

    Mistaken analogyIt's not an emergency.  The climate isn't assaulting us full frontal (Katrina was peanuts).  If you are going to rely on people feeling it is an emergency, you are going to have to wait until it is way too late.  I don't have a better answer unfortunatly, but I think relying on the emergency scenario is wishful thinking.  I wish I could see a way forward.  What I see instead are social, political and economic systems that are incapable of responding appropriately, and incapable of the required radical change.  The only bright spot is that increasing numbers of people - although still a tiny minority -  seem to be realising this; which might yet provide an opportunity.  Or maybe that is more wishful thinking.

    Permalink

  3. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 6:53 am
    21 Sep 2007

    Interesting point, ngoddard......because what you're saying, again to try the analogy route, is that it's like the 1930's, and Hitler (and Japan) are clearly being belligerent, and only a few people (like Churchill) are sounding the alarms -- but then, I am not advocating going to a fear strategy, quite the opposite, my intention is to advocate studying the solution, which was significant government steering of the economy.  But it does feel like gathering clouds, perhaps quite literally.

    Permalink

  4. Asp Posted 7:28 am
    21 Sep 2007

    Misinterpretation of rolesI think you have misinterpreted the government's role in during the WWII economy. The government did not so much steer the economy as much as the military became the nation's largest (only?) consumer of these products (and the government's demand exceeded production capacities). The government's "investments" during WWII were specifically and unambiguously defined and the value of these purchases, compared to other alternatives, were nearly immediately verifiable.
    Your analogy breaks down for a global warming response as the specification and consumption of these production changes are not the same entity (whereas they were the same entity in WWII - the military). Likewise, it is not clear which options today are the best compared to the alternatives - so how would a central office determine which direction to move, and how would they change course if a better direction were discovered after so much sunk cost were poured into infrastructure projects as you suggest?
    The current model of distributing the specific decision making of how to reach the overall goal to many individuals and entities allows us to explore many more available options (obvious and otherwise) without sinking too many resources into a sub-optimum approach.

    Permalink

  5. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 7:36 am
    21 Sep 2007

    Asp --It's true that there was only one buyer in WWII, which in some ways made things easier.  They did have to "pick" technologies, which the military does all the time -- sometimes they do a better job than other times.  I don't think people should be overly worried about wasting some infrastructure -- for instance, in the early 1960s, when the Japanese were trying to catch up to us in steel-making, they actually tore down just completed steel plants when a better technology came along.  Of course, we can't afford to do that too often.
    In the global warming case, even in an emergency situation, we would still have a much better chance of using the market, because the government would not necessarily need to be the purchaser.  The government could distribute vouchers, or grants, or whatever you want to call them, say, a certain amount of money per person to buy solar/wind energy, retrofit a building, etc.  Governments would certainly need to choose rail/bus systems, so it would be a mix.  For most technologies, the central office need not pick the technology, most likely just the specifications.

    Permalink

  6. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 8:45 am
    21 Sep 2007

    Class Clown

    George says:
    And the reason people don't stick up for the First Amendment is because Americans have been bought -- cheaply, with gizmos and toys. Everybody has a cellphone that'll ... make pancakes for him. And so nobody questions things anymore. It's a very passive society.
    And that's not exactly done by accident. I'm sure that over the course of time those people who have like agendas -- those people with converging interests -- People always say, Ah, you're a conspiracy theorist. And I say, Well, what's wrong with a conspiracy? Do you honestly believe that important people with great power do not occasionally talk to each other and make mutual plans about certain outcomes, including the death of a person perhaps that's in their way?
    Of course it's true, and I think that the commoditization of this country and the toys and the gizmos and (expletive) is all -- even if it's done passively -- is done knowing that it'll keep us occupied and keep our minds off the true rape that's taking place.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/20038 ...

    John Bailo


    Sutext:

    Permalink

  7. tico89 Posted 12:01 pm
    21 Sep 2007

    Who's the enemy?The advantage (?) of a war is that it unites the people against a common enemy, calling on phony nationalism to make people fight against an enemy they don't know and usually would otherwise hate a great deal less than they hate the leaders of their own country.
    So, who's the enemy here? Seems to be tending towards blaming the climate, except isn't the climate what we're supposed to be protecting?
    The problem is the enemy is right in among us--even ourselves. People don't like that, they'd rather concentrate on a practically non-existent enemy abroad. So I don't think a war analogy works. Unless 'climate change' is turned into an enemy itself. "The war on 'climate change'". Pick something abstract. Worked with terror.

    If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

    Permalink

  8. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:12 pm
    21 Sep 2007

    This is about stopping a war.....against life on the planet, it's actually an emergency that requires making peace.  World War II is the best example we have of a very quick transformation of an economy, however, it was actually in exactly in the wrong direction -- as necessary as U.S. participation was -- that is, it required the construction of a means of destruction.  What we're talking about is the construction of a means of production that does not destroy the earth.  Put another way, we're trying to change the global economy from being a means of destruction to being a means of creation, one that sustains and maintains the biosphere.

    Permalink

  9. caniscandida Posted 3:19 pm
    21 Sep 2007

    taking over the economyI accept, Jon, that our counter-GW commitment should be comparable to the preparations, redirections and sacrifices that Americans undertook during WWII.
    But it is not surprising that at that point "the parallels never go beyond a vague reference."
    Back then, we are told, the great majority of Americans understood that a lot of heavy lifting needed to be done, and fast, and they were willing to throw themselves into the effort.  And surely the auto manufacturers appreciated what that meant.  They did not simply immolate themselves on the altar of patriotism; they knew that their extraordinary offer to FDR would put them in a better place, business-wise, at the end.
    But there is nothing like that consensus in the US today, regarding global warming.  Unless and until the "moral equivalent of WWII" talk sweeps the nation and wins most hearts and minds, the "parallels" are not going to go anywhere.

    Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

  10. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 5:55 pm
    21 Sep 2007

    Of course it isAn emergency is any circumstance where, if required immediate actions are not taken, the consequences become progressively worse and the cost of subsequent response actions shoots up, where they are still available at all.
    When you learn to sail a ship, the main goal is to learn to recognize what constitutes an emergency while there is still time to react effectively---which is when things still appear to be going well (the collision hasn't happened, but soon will if a radical course change isn't made smartly).
    We are in a "constant bearing, decreasing range" situation with climate--in other words, we are heading right for an object of unknown size, but which might well turn out to be a landmass of jagged rocks.  The denialist campaign has been staggeringly effective, so much so that there is a good possibility that throwing the wheel hard over now would still not be enough to prevent disaster.
    We are the captive crew members on a vessel being commanded by sociopathic thugs who are listening to the advice of sociopathic, autistic economists like Lomborg, people who study the charts and advise us that we cannot afford to turn away from the imminent collision because the profitability of our voyage will decline too much.  If our situation is not recognizable as an emergency, then there are no emergencies.  



    Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

    Permalink

  11. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 3:52 am
    22 Sep 2007

    The banality of emergency?Caniscandida and JMG, I certainly agree that most people don't think we are in a state of emergency.  For better or worse, WWII seems to be the best example of the country pulling together to create a great transformation; Mike Tidwell seems to be trying to use the Civil Rights movement as another example, although as Martin Luther King realized toward the end of his life, a much more thorough-going transformation was needed.  In fact, he named racism, militarism, and consumerism as the core of the problem.
    In fact, the problem is much more banal than the enemies in WWII -- it's easier to rouse people to fight Nazis than to fight the kinds of things that James Howard Kunstler talks about.
    When people invoke WWII, though, they should realize what they are saying -- and cc, if you are saying that we need that sort of effort, then that means a huge intervention of the government into the economy.  I have been arguing that the government does indeed need a larger role in the economy in order to get us out of this mess, but the WWII situation (and yes, there was a massive amount of volunteerism, without which the effort would have been much less successful) was certainly one of social consensus that the government had to do something.
    Actually, you would think that the car companies might welcome a shift to public transit considering their current plight, although once when a professor friend of mine (Seymour Melman) asked the ceo of ford, in writing, if he would be interested in pursuing subway manufacture, he was politely turned down.
    Finally, JMG, I think the boat analogy is another good one to put beside the canary in the coal mine, but I'll repeat one I posted about previously, from a medieval persian poet:Just be quiet and sit down. The reason is you're drunk. And this is the edge of the roof.

    Permalink

  12. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 4:54 am
    22 Sep 2007

    Nice, exceptThat the poet's assumption was that you could stop the disaster and avoid plunging over the side by sitting still.  
    For the roof analogy to work, it would be that we've managed to climb a very steep-pitched roof with our bare hands, and there's high winds, sleet, and rain coming.  Just sitting still will not save us.

    Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

    Permalink

  13. jcwinnie Posted 5:59 am
    22 Sep 2007

    All in the TimingI think the choice of timing in airing the series is worthy of note. It occurs right at a time, when public opinion for ending American involvement in the Iraq civil war is at an all time high.
    Methinks the revival of WWII analogies is a strategy by public propaganda television to create a different atmosphere, to wit, "Let's all pull together at this time of great national challenge and help the cronies of George and Dick get the oil from those "other people".

    Permalink

  14. caniscandida Posted 6:43 am
    22 Sep 2007

    Jalal ud-Din Rumiis one of the world's greatest poets.  An early contemporary of the Medieval Catholic West's Dante Alighieri, he would deserve to be considered a prominent poetic voice of Islam, were he not so closely associated with the heterodox, latitudinarian Sufi movement, of which orthodox Muslims think little.
    I am unhappy, Jon, that I missed that earlier post of yours.  It came during my computer blackout.  Thanks for referring to it now.
    I very much like these lines, from earlier in the same poem:
    <<

    According to the old knowers, if you're absent from the one you love even for one second, that ruins the whole thing. There must be someone, just to find one sign of the other world in this town would be helpful.

    >>
    This is religious art of the highest quality.  Rumi's connexion between erotic love (and in Sufism, it is often frankly homoerotic) and the quest for Paradise, the "other world," radically moved by that mysterious love of the absent Other, whom out of ignorance and by lazy convention we call "God," illustrates about as well as anything else the meaning of religion in human life and creativity.
    It is interesting, perhaps, that there is a far more ancient association between falling off a roof while drunk and steering a ship well.  In the Odyssey, Book X, one of Odysseus's men, Elpenor, falls off Circe's roof and dies.  In Book XI, Odysseus meets his shade in the Underworld, and the shade explains that he had been drunk.  That fits the pattern in Homer's construction of Odysseus's heroism: The hero must be aware, observant, rational and sober at all times, as he sails toward his destination; by allowing himself to get drunk or fall asleep, at best he delays his home-coming, and at worst he lands himself in mortal trouble.
    During George W. Bush's administration, for many Americans such as myself it has indeed felt far too often as though the steersman who is supposed to be steering our ship-of-state past the cliffs of the Sirens and through the strait of Scylla and Charybdis is a drunken fool.

    Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

  15. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 11:42 am
    22 Sep 2007

    I take global warming seriously but....it's these type of analogies that lose me completely. I'm sorry, comparing the possible complete world dominance of a fascist dictator bent on massive genocide with global warming cheapens environmentalism and makes us look like looney lefties who need to use sensationalism to get attention. Sorry.

    I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

  16. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 12:35 pm
    22 Sep 2007

    On steersmen --CC, I was hoping you would eventually see the reference, and I'm glad you were able to educate us further.  I would also note that the word "hegemony" comes from the Greek for "to lead", while, also using Wikipedia, the word cybernetics comes for the greek word for "steersman, governor, pilot, or rudder -- the same root as government".  So a drunken boat captain seems an apt combination of the two (Rumi and JMG).
    Jason --
    I'm glad you brought up that problem with the WWII analogy too -- as you can see from the comments, there are quite a few, and it's quite an uneasy comparison which is to be expected considering that World War II may have been the biggest emergency up to now, and global warming/environmental destruction may be...well, worse?  It may well be.  It could certainly be responsible, eventually, for tens of millions of deaths, and untold destruction.  
    But my main point is that I don't even think anybody who expresses the desire to make an equivalent committment to action as in WWII is trying to make an exact analogy.  The analogy is of a general kind -- that WWII was a very serious emergency, that global warming is as well, and we should consider how to avoid it.  I've never even read anybody say something like, "Global warming will be worse than WWII".  If you don't like the idea of the government being involved in the economy, which I suspect, that's fine, but nobody is trying to push anything "loony".

    Permalink

  17. Sam Wells Posted 12:54 pm
    22 Sep 2007

    Militarizing Global Warming?Myself, I agree with MLK that militarization should be avoided at all costs.  I am a man of peace.
    To equate Global Warming to WWII is the height of folly and hubris.  It smacks of failed campaigns such as the Cold War, the War on Drugs, and now the War on Terror.  
    If you're going to war, kick some ass and come home as soon as possible.  The effort to do something about global warming will require decades, if not centuries, of care and peace.

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  18. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:13 pm
    22 Sep 2007

    Sam,just to make things even more complicated, there is some super-strategic office within the Pentagon, with a super-strategic thinker who has been there for decades -- can't remember his name -- and he put out a report on global warming, which at the time seemed like a way for the military to justify its existence, to, you know, insure "stability" in the unstable aftermath of global warming.  So we will have to be vigilant about opportunistic attempts to take advantage of the chaos, as Bush tried to take advantage of the Katrina disaster by hiring his buddies in Blackwater, etc.

    Permalink

  19. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 2:28 pm
    22 Sep 2007

    Jon...I have no idea why you would suspect that I don't want government involvement in policy when that's what my job is- I teach environmental policy- and I have numerous posts on Grist about government policy- the good, the bad, and the ugly. I must say that your comment is utterly baffling.
    What I object to is even indirectly equating Hitler and Stalin with global warming- it's silly, counter-productive, and cheapens the environmental movement. I'd be happy to discuss policy all day long, well maybe not all day, but you get the point.

    I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

  20. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 2:31 pm
    22 Sep 2007

    I meant government involvement in the economy..not policy- that was a typo. But you get the point.

    I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

  21. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:46 pm
    22 Sep 2007

    Jason, sorry to misinterpret......your views about government involvement -- it's just that I was wondering if somebody would object to my implication that we might need some governmental planning, a la 1941-1945 -- after all, that's where John Kenneth Galbraith cut his intellectual teeth -- and I misspoke.
    As far as equating Hitler and Stalin, of course WWII and global warming are very different phenomena, and some writers use WWII as an example of a high level of commitment; but I think it's reasonable to put both in the more general category of "global emergency".  I would also put the Cold War potential of a nuclear war in that category.  To try to use Kunstlerian terminology, the acts of Hitler and Stalin can not be compared to a family of four driving an hour round trip to go to the mall.

    Permalink

  22. Colin Wright Posted 4:14 pm
    22 Sep 2007

    On drunken sea captains...Joseph Hazelwood of the Exxon Valdez surely qualifies!
    But it is not just the looney left who compare global warming to war and genocide. Here is Fellow of the Royal Society and Thatcherite James Lovelock:

    The catastrophe threatened by global heating is far worse than any war, famine or plague in living memory, worse even than global nuclear war
    To be sure, Lovelock is on the extreme end of the prediction spectrum (and thinks billions will perish this century). But the latest melting of the Artic ica cap surely throws suspicion on the linear modeling of the IPCC. Here's one of the scientists from the NSIDC

    Serreze said that the observed rate of decline was faster than any of the models indicated...If we were talking even two or three years ago, I'd have said the transition to an ice-free Arctic summer might be between 2070 and 2100. But what we're starting to see is that is rather optimistic, and an educated guess right now would be 2030. It's something that could be within our lifetime.
    One hopes that the IPPC is not another the drunken sea captain asleep at the wheel...

    Permalink

  23. Sam Wells Posted 1:20 am
    23 Sep 2007

    Outsourcing the ProblemI agree with calling global warming emergency, but you have to be careful even there - over-reaction by New Orleans officials for what turned out to be a minor tropical storm (T.D. 10) backfired because NOTHING HAPPENED.  The roots of our problem with global warming are deep and is directly related to the western economies that allowed the middle class to do so well.  The week's Economist has an excellent story about those economic trends - which seem to defy gravity.  I'd call our predicament more like an "adverse Pogo condition."
    The reason why western economies did so well was to outsource basic industry while creating an efficient transportation system.  Along with the industries we outsourced the air pollution.  True, the U.S. is a large emitter of CO2, but not nearly as much as if we made everything here, without allowing imports ... think about that.
    So you have countries like Mexico, China, and India performing basic industry for us, yet the general population never really allowed such a large, free middle class in those countries.  So in many cases, people in those areas have to burn coal, oil, wood, and charcoal just to make meals or to heat the house.  
    I was talking with a friend the other day about his trips to Bulgaria and China.  His comment was that when you get off the airplane, your nose is assaulted by toxic fumes.  Black smoke pours from every available chimney.  Mysterious underground smoke most likely from coal bed fires waft.  All made possible by the good ole US of A.
    Is that a double-whammy or what?
    -sam

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  24. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:05 am
    23 Sep 2007

    Sam, two points:

    I wish someone would do a co2 accounting with imports taken into account.  I'm sure that if you counted the co2 emissions of U.S. imports from China in the US carbon account, the US would once again regain its place as the world's worst carbon emitter.  I once calculated that up to 50% of our manufactured goods that we use here come from imports, so to just look at domestic c02 emissions these days makes no sense.
     I assume you mean that when you said "The reason why western economies did so well was to outsource basic industry while creating an efficient transportation system" you were referring to reducing pollution -- economically it's been a disaster, but that's another story -- also, the U.S. certainly has an incredibly inefficient transportation system

    Permalink

  25. GreyFlcn Posted 2:26 am
    23 Sep 2007

    The problem with comparing it to WW2The problem with comparing it to WW2 is that it requires entirely different cognitive thought processes to deal with.
    As outlined by this rather inciteful article,

    "If only gay sex caused global warming"
    Global warming isn't trying to kill us, and that's a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation's top priority.
    The second reason why global warming doesn't put our brains on orange alert is....

    http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm

    Permalink

  26. Sam Wells Posted 4:09 am
    23 Sep 2007

    Good points, Jon

     I'd love more of a life-cycle approach to international CO2 emissions.  Not only does it affect a manufacturing plant overseas that exports to the US, but the ship or plane that spreads the pollution all over the globe (nice site on a place called AMVERS for global ship routes - Google that, it's like a WOW moment!).
     The revolution in transportation was at least two things:


      a.  Just-in-time shipping for needed supplies, parts, and shipments
      b.  Containerized transportation such as 40-foot marine containers
    If you think about it, the WWII analogy was right on the spot when it comes down to logistics.  And fuel.  And fuel burned equals CO2 emitted.  /sam

    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

  27. trock Posted 12:14 am
    24 Sep 2007

    world war II and not world war IIOkay, it's not world war II.
    There just isn't any drama.
    How would Star Wars be with Luke Skywalker putting on photovoltaics on his uncle's house instead of doing battle with Darth Vader.   different kind of a movie.
    Or what would Star Trek be if Capt Kirk was checking on his wind turbines instead of kicking Romulan ass.
    The only thing I can think of would be to have somebody sliding off one of those wind turbines to get any excitement out of it.   And then, of course, who would want that.  
    Some way, somebody has to figure out how to get people excited about putting up 1000 2.5 Megawatt wind turbines to turn off one of those big coal plants.
    Now, that would be writing!

    Permalink

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.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement