Former Gore advisor warns that global warming could sound death knell for globalization

“The Age of Consequences” report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in the US, predicts that scarcity of resources may “dictate the terms of international relations” for years to come as rich countries could “go through a 30-year process of kicking away from the lifeboat.”

Another report says energy needs in 2030 could rise more than 50% above current levels, mainly due to rapid economic growth in China and India. So who’s going to be kicking who?

Leon Fuerth of George Washington University in Washington, DC, one of the CSIS report’s authors and former national security advisor to Vice-president Al Gore, said globalization could end by 2040 due to climate change, causing nations to abandon the drive toward open borders and lower trade barriers and raise the drawbridge to conserve resources.

Elsewhere, Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), said a 50 per cent rise in energy demand would threaten security and accelerate climate change.

But that’s okay as it will contribute to “improvement in the quality of life for more than two billion people” in China and India.

“This is a legitimate aspiration that needs to be accommodated and supported by the rest of the world.”

Scientific studies suggest the world is already past the tipping point, so the “accommodation and support” called for by Tanaka may not be possible. Perhaps someone should suggest to him that the problem is “global warming,” and greenhouse gas emissions from China and India are as damaging to the planet as those from the U.S.


I support the ultimate goals of this site, I think, but there are things about it that I can’t reconcile with my anti-corporatist, minimalist, Progressive principles.

“We’re here to clear the PR pollution that clouds the science on climate change” - very admirable!

But…YOU are a PR company, yourselves. You are working for a client, presumably the Suzuki Foundation, attempting to influence people’s thinking & behaviour on their behalf. How is that any different than what you purport to be fighting to “clear away”? Aren’t you simply adding another layer of PR to the existing mental smog?

Why should anyone be less skeptical of whatever you have to say on this subject than they would be about whatever any other PR firm has to say about it? You go out of your way to blast PR firms as unscrupulous propagandists who will say anything to advance their clients interests…but you don’t think that reflects on you and the statments you make, also?

I’m sorry - I’m sure you’re all very nice and sincere people - but I think that having a PR firm running a site of this nature is inherently contradictory and may even do more to damage the credibility of the cause you espouse than it does to support it. I wish that Dr Suzuki had developed some other means and method for “clearing the PR pollution”.

That’s the basis of the concerns I was expressing.

“Jim believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds – that a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible actions.”

Bill Hicks might have said something like: “Oh, Jim’s going for the “socially responsible thought controllers” dollar - that’s a big market, he’s very smart to do that…”

PR is PR is PR, however much I might approve of their clientelle.

I would have said, “there is PR, and then there is PR.” Check out what Luntz was doing for the Bush administration, setting out deliberately to make people believe that there was more of a debate among scientists than there actually is. This is a matter of record: I have seen him admit as much in an interview, as well as the fact that he now believes that the consensus is real. This was done behind closed doors and the consequences have been echoing down the years to general public confusion.

DeSmog is open about its goals, its clients, and its people. They declare interest whenever it exists, and when they are wrong, they issue corrections AND apologies. The issue here is transparency.

Public Relations doesn’t HAVE to be a dirty game.

Femack said: “Public Relations doesn’t HAVE to be a dirty game.”

I disagree. I don’t believe that PR, marketing and other methods of manipulating people’s thinking are neutral tools that become “good” in the hands of “good people” and “bad” in the hands of “bad people”. The kind of manipulation that Hoggan himself advocates: “finding out how far people’s thinking diverges from where you want it to be and then nudging them in that direction” is morally repugnant to me - period.

If you are using this site as an example of “clean” PR, I have to vehemently disagree. But let me explain where I’m coming from, first.

I have a deep-seated respect and reverence for the global ecosystem as The Mother of All Life. I’m a Gaian. 30+ years ago, while I was still a teen, I made a decision and a committment to live my life in ways that would minimize my own impact on the ecosystem. Toward that end, I have never owned or driven a gas-powered vehicle or even purchased one litre of gasoline. I’ve lived a minimalist existence - ALL of my possessions can fit inside a 10’ by 10’ room, and all of them were purchased second-hand or crafted through natural processes by local artisans - so I have not supported the primary production by major corporations responsible for the majority of the eco-rape that has taken place during my lifetime.

I’m not a global-warming “denier”, but the concept of global warming wasn’t even on the radar when I made these choices & commitments. I haven’t been scared into living this way by global warming warnings - my commitments are broader and deeper than that. That’s why I chose “The Real Thing” for my psuedonym here. I am, the Real Thing.

I’d been reading critics of the environmental movement, in the popular press, talking about a quasi-religious tone in global warming advocacy complete with dividing the public into “true believers” and “heretics” - but I thought that was simply a novel “spin” on their part. And then…

Then I came across this site and read about a dozen articles are was horrified to realize that IT’S TRUE! There really IS an Inquisitionesque tone to what’s being said here, there really is a division of people into believers and heretics (deniers) and there really is advocacy that the heretics ought to be suppressed, censored or otherwise SILENCED! I’m appalled by the very idea of a “denier’s gallery” and the article implying that journalists ought to participate in preventing dissenting voices from being publicly aired just enraged me! I don’t care if the dissenting voice comes from Exxon-Mobile themselves, I will never support denying other citizens the ability to present their point of view to the public.

An old friend of mine - Darren Thurston - was jailed in the US recently for helping the Earth Liberation Front people in their firebombing campaigns. I haven’t seen or talked to him in over a decade, but I believe he is still the person I knew him to be…an intelligent, caring, devoted son of The Great Mother. Nevertheless, firebombings are WRONG! Destruction of property is WRONG! Eco-terrorism is wrong and I will never support it.

Eco-inquisitions are WRONG also, and I feel compelled to express that here in a very frank manner. Some of what is going on with this site offends me deeply and I’m not going to keep that to myself and pretend to along with it.

My BS detector has been buzzing loudly since you started posting. Since we have no way of ever knowing for sure if what you are saying is true or not I will give it the same weighting as I do to a grain of salt.

What you seem to have completely missed (could it be on purpose and not accidental?) is that what Desmogblog and the honest people who make useful contributions (as opposed to the dishonest rubbish we get from the deniers) are doing is exposing the various lies and distortions that the deniers are making which are not supported by the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not really PR but is simply the correcting of dishonesty.

It is this dishonesty which is being exposed, not the censorship of the “other view” as you are trying to make out.

Try reading what is out there by climate scientists, scientific organizations and other knowledgeable people rather than telling us that the discussion must be “balanced and fair”. Your support for the deniers is showing through your camouflage, try and do a better job next time.

Ian Forrester

Well, Ian - here are some photos of me & my minimalist possessions:

note the Children of Gaia banner in the third photo. I did put up that posting in part for your benefit, but I certainly didn’t spend hours painstakingly crafting that banner JUST NOW or just for you.

If you live here or wish to come here you can meet me and personally verify all that I’ve told you. Write me at realthing2007 at and apologize for your witch-hunting behaviour and false accusation: “Your support for the deniers is showing through your camouflage, try and do a better job next time” - if I think you are sincere I will tell you where I live.

I think I’ve been very clear in stating that I’m not skeptical of the idea that human activity is causing a phenomenon encapsulated by the phrase “global warming”, nor am I skeptical at all that corporate-consumerist lifestyle damages the ecosystem in many other ways as well. That’s why I’ve been living this way for 30+ years.

Are you still driving, Ian? Be honest now. If you are - why is that? It can’t possibly be, that you are still driving because the existence of “deniers” is causing you to be skeptical of global warming - yet that’s what I’m reading all over the place on this site, that “the deniers” must be exposed, drowned out and silenced because “they are confusing people” and therefore people are not taking the necessary action in their own lives.

Are YOU taking the necessary action? Or are you addicted to your comforts & conveniences? THAT is the real obstacle, not failure to comprehend the danger. The misdiagnosis of the problem (people don’t understand the danger) and the subsequent mistaken prescription (silence the heretics!) is what I would expect from PR experts, since controlling people’s percetions is what they do for a living.

That’s part of the reason why I think using PR to fight PR is problematic and inherently contradictory.

Children of Gaia: the metalcore band, or the werewolf tribe?

Your brand new website is strangely unconvincing.

That’s Children of Gaia Iseum of The Fellowship of Isis spiritual association. It has been “in retirement” since the mid 1990’s. Would you like me to post some of the materials from it, on my new blogsite, for you to peruse?

I would rather see you describe what specific examples you have seen here to make you complain about “eco-inquisitions” and “witch-hunting”.

Just who are you trying to kid with your “minimalist” life style. I’m pretty sure that this is just a big pretense. There is a term for trolls like you but I can’t remember what it is right now. Perhaps someone more versed in the field of internet trolls will know.

If you are serious in what you are saying, then, sadly, you are doing a dis-service to those of us who are trying to expose the fraudulent and lying tactics of the AGW deniers. Rethink your approach if you really want to combat the negative effects of AGW.

Ian Forrester

There you go again - “if you’re not 100% onboard with what we are doing and saying, you’re a threat to our cause” is irrational witch-hunting behaviour and is more likely to generate doubts about the reality of global warming amongst the uninformed than anything I have said here.

Try actually living what you profess, Ian, rather than distracting yourself from what you know you should be doing by pointing fingers of blame at others. Park your car, Ian, and never drive it again. Move out of your mansion and find a rationally-sized place to live close to where you work. Sell your corporate stock. Stop spending 25% more than you earn every month. Take control of your own living and stop worrying so much about controlling everyone else.

Ian’s BS detector is working perfectly. Sorry, “Real Thing” you’re not a convincing victim of persecution, given the tone of your own writing. It’s too bad you can’t say anything positive about living a minimalist lifestyle.

“A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user’s sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed ‘concerns’. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group”.

Thing, if you are not one of these you are certainly doing a first rate impersonation.

Ian Forrester

There’s a term for worshipful followers and mindless movement adherents who never express a dissenting or even unique opinion of their own, Ian.

I don’t have to go searching on google for it, either.

Such people are termed SHEEPLE.

There’s a term for people who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, also.

Such people are termed HYPOCRITES.

I believe in making sacrifices, when necessary, to support a cause or acheive a socially worthy goal - but I don’t believe in sacrificing one’s values. When I see something being done in the name of a cause or movement I believe in, that contradicts my values, I’m going to register my protest.

So, tell me about yourself Ian. I’m obviously a newbie - how about sharing with me what steps you’ve taken in your life to reduce your own impact on the ecosystem. Changed a few lightbulbs to the new enviro-bulbs?

How stupid do you think regular contributors to this site are? You are one very confused (and confusing) person.

You have spent several posts telling me everything you “know” about me then ask for that information. Why do you need me to tell you this when you are doing a very good job (in your eyes) of describing what a horrible environmental hypocrite I am. Do you draw all your conclusions from such a lack of factual information? If you are serious (and I still will give you the benefit of the doubt even though you continue to make that harder and harder for me) then do some reading on the science of climate change, see where the deniers are being completely dishonest in the statements they are making, it is not too hard, even for a minimalist like you.

Ian Forrester

There is ample evidence at this blog and many others that people who ARE unapologetically addicted to fossil fuel consumption and/or will not accept regulations that interfere with their “individual rights & freedoms” use the claims of the skeptics to justify doing whatever they like, spewing CO2 all the while. Up until very recently, GWB could stand there at the presidential podium and claim that there was no clear scientific consensus, largely thanks to the machinations of a small group intentionally stirring up the appearance of doubt where there was none, or so little it is statistically negligible. Likewise the big oil companies. But you won’t find Tim Ball or Tom Harris admitting that they are PR men, rather than scientists. Quite the opposite.

How would you combat the misinformation, TRT? Is there a better way? Few of us have got the time or resources to do the kind of thing that DeSmog, Deltoid, etc do. And let’s face it – there isn’t a lot of time to waste getting down to work on this. If you’ve got a better way, by all means GO FOR IT! The more the merrier, and as you have said, we really are on the same side, right?

Misinformation is a minor issue. The truth will ultimately prevail and is already prevailing. But people like Bush, with a vested interest in keeping the oil & gas systems dominant, will always find some rationalization to protecting and furthering their own interests.

What’s important is to actually live a minimal-impact lifestyle. They can’t sell oil & gas to people who refuse to consume it. They can’t sell consumer goods made using carbon-based energy to people who refuse to buy them.

What’s important is to not discredit the entire environmental movement by engaging in fanaticism, witch-hunting, or advocating censorship and suppression of dissenting opinions (even if they are nonsense).

I’m glad to hear that you are a committed pre-AGW environmentalist, but don’t imagine that you are the only one out there. I’ve been composting since I was a child (I’m in my mid-50s), worked at a Pollution Probe recycling depot during the early ‘70’s, and my veggie & flower gardens are chemical-free. Long before there was any news in the air about AGW, my lifestyle decisions were made with the environment as top priority. I live in a one-room (+ bath) house heated by a woodstove, and buy my fuel from a reputably managed woodlot. A vacation is two weeks in a canoe in the bush, and as much as possible I take the bus, ride a bike or walk.

Now that we have established that we are on the same page, let me say that I believe we have a duty to counter the claims of people who are so clearly in denial (whatever their reasons for believing as they do). The evidence of bona fide scientific, peer-reviewed studies has been building up for decades, along with an increasing degree of certainty that human production of GHGs is causing global warming. The consequences of doing nothing could be overwhelming.

In the face of the evidence, denial of the science and of a consensus is not only foolish, it is irresponsible. Moreover, the deliberate campaign to prevent government action by causing public confusion amounts to reckless disregard for the well-being of every life – human or otherwise – on the planet, as well as future generations.

“What if they’re wrong?” ask the skeptics. “We’ll destroy economies etc etc etc.” But WHAT IF THEY’RE RIGHT? Look at the odds. Thousands of scientist in agreement on AGW vs a few dozen. Now look who is IN that “Deniers’ Database”. Are they qualified to trash the findings of thousands of climate scientists from around the world? Visit and check out who THEY are. Who would you bet on?

I am as passionate about this as I am about the environment in general, because the two cannot be separated. The time for denial and obfuscation is over.

Hello, kindred spirit! :)

I agree with what you’ve said. Nevertheless, I have concerns about this site and I’m not going to let witch-hunting inquisitors silence me. Goddess knows, I never have.

I don’t think “the deniers” are as big a threat as Al Gore himself, to be honest. His self-professed carbon-neutrality is such a lie! I think it’s very dangerous to have such a prominent global warming advocate telling people, both directly and thru his living example, that “we can remain stinking rich capitalists, living in mansions, driving cars, jetting around the globe, owning corporate stock, etc. - all we need to do is a little tweaking, like switching to energy-saving lightbulbs”.

That’s a TRULY dangerous falsehood. People MUST permanently park their gas-powered vehicles at the very least - not tommorow, right now today. Getting out of the corporate-consumerist rat-trap to the maximum extent possible is also necessary.

I have to wonder how much this obsession with silencing dissenter’s voices is simply a scapegoating rationalization for not doing what people know they should be doing in their own lives - a way to stay focused on what others are doing instead of being honest with themselves about what they themselves are failing to do in their own lives.

My opinion differs from yours. If a large number of people strongly curtail their use of resources today, it simply means that others may waste them and pollute for cheap tomorrow. So there’s an element of public policy to the solution rather than a focus on only personal lifestyle change. To effect positive policy changes, a democracy requires an informed public discussion. Websites that ferret out deliberate misinformation campaigns that pollute that discussion play an important role in the functioning of a democracy. I think that’s clear.

I’m confused by you, however. You say that people need to get out of their gas-powered cars, right now today. Yet in a different post you indicate that we have time to wait for the truth. Talk about contradictions! I don’t care if you’re a concern troll or not. If your position is pretend or not I would hope that you defend it with a consistent logic.

If you read “About Us”, why did you write these two incorrect statements?

You are working for a client, presumably the Suzuki Foundation…

…I wish that Dr Suzuki had developed some other means and method for “clearing the PR pollution”…

Nowhere does it say that David Suzuki or the Suzuki Foundation helped to found this website.

I made those comments, because I do my research before I speak. I went to Jim Hoggan’s website and found this:
“Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the David Suzuki Foundation for more than 15 years”

Nowhere on this website is there a disclaimer stating that the site is NOT a “strategic communications service” provided to the Suzuki Foundation.

Do you speak for Dr Suzuki?

It is not clear to me why a connection with Suzuki is in any way unethical? If Hoggan et al were deliberately going to any trouble to HIDE a connection, then I might be concerned. But they’re pretty open about it, so if you think, “Hmmm – better take this with a grain of salt” you are free to look elsewhere to find out if deSmogBlog has got it right. My experience has been that 98% of the time, they are dead on, and when an error has been pointed out, they correct it & apologize. They also frequently disclose any interest they might have in individual items. As blogs go, this one is very open about themselves (sort of like, where the real scientists hang out …)

I speak for myself. About Us includes this statement:

The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.

Where is Suzuki in this statement? Why are you bringing Suzuki into it? Why on earth would would you expect Desmogblog to have a disclaimer that Suzuki is not involved? That’s just a stupid suggestion to make.

The reason I am suspicious is that the rightwing Canadian websites I sometimes read have an obsession with David Suzuki, demonizing him much as they demonize Al Gore. This kind of attack on public figures who speak about AGW is part of the PR war between denialists and realists. When you gratuitously drag in Suzuki’s name, you are avoiding the facts and feeding the rightwing obsession, thus producing another denialist meme.

Further, when you make vague complaints about “eco-inquisitions” you are acting much like the rightwingers who complain about people using rude language when arguing issues. Sorry, if you can’t take the heat, don’t argue about AGW.

If you have specific instances of “inquisitorial” behaviour, cite them. Vague complaints simply mean you are trying to produce smog, not clear it.

I didn’t say the site should contain such a statement, I said it DOESN’T. Why bring Suzuki into it? Well, let’s see…Dr Suzuki is perhaps the most well-known scientist promoting global warming warnings, which is what this site is about…Jim Hoggan is the Chairman of the Suzuki Foundation…the Suzuki Foundation is a client of Jim Hoggan…

The first thing I think of, whenever I run into a PR agent online is: who are their clients? Because, that’s what PR people do - they spin people’s perceptions on behalf of clients. So, I naturally went to see if the Suzuki Foundation was a client of his - and they are. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but if I naturally make that association don’t you think the people who REALLY dislike environmentalists are making it also? Perhaps another reason why having a PR agent front for a site of this nature might be a strategic mistake?

I did state that I was a fan of Dr Suzuki. I corresponded with him once, back in the mid-1980’s when my friends & I were running an earth spirituality tent at the local Earth Day celebrations. In his reply, he expressed that he felt the real hope for the planet lay in a “spiritual awakening” which touched me quite deeply.

I could cite many statements on this site that strike me as inquisitional, but I’ll let your own witch-hunting attitude speak for me. “If you criticize this site in any way, you MUST be THE ENEMY in disguise - exposed as such and driven off” is what I get very strongly from YOU YOURSELF. I’m not surprised that actual critics of global warming come away from this site thinking that this is a quasi-religious crusade…I’m on your side and you scare the heck outta ME!

Interesting theory, Tom. I noticed what’s-his-name’s absence as well. However the photos don’t quite match up: 845/21/s500443217_6256.jpg (space inserted after profile6/)

Are you saying the photos have been changed or something? My computer display isn’t working right so I can’t see them in detail.

Just a bit of silliness. I don’t know who either of them are, and I no longer care. As you have pointed out, it doesn’t matter much! I have been following the insane postings out of N Dakota (I think) on the AGW/Over Population story, where Steve is holding his own, and find it so over-the-top its laughable.

I think it is valid for a PR firm to try to “clear the PR pollution”. After all, it is their field that gets tarred with the same brush as the sleazy ones – shouldn’t they try to point it out when someone is spinning an issue?

I interpret “PR” (done properly) to mean helping the public gain access to sometimes complicated information in a form that is easily understood and accurate. DeSmog consistently directs its readers to check out the science behind the claims, and backs it up with credible, solid sources. Tom Harris, Tim Ball, et al take advantage of the complexity of the material to confuse the public. The last thing Tim Ball wants is for any lay person to be able to fully understand the IPCC reports, or to realize that there is a very good reason nothing he has written since the early 1990s (and precious little then) has made it into peer reviewed journals.

Final point: Who better to shoot down BAD PR than people who understand the possible inner machinations?

There’s PR as it applies to misinformation (like we see from the deniers), and there’s PR as it applies to the truth (as we see from the scientific consensus). While the line between misinformation/truth may be subjective for some, I see no problem with a PR firm using the skills they have learned to help expose the mistruths being peddled by their counterparts.

I think it’s actually quite sensible. There’s an old proverb: “Set a thief to catch a thief”. While there are no thieves here, I think you can see my point.

This is nonsensical. Its not about PR per se but who the PR is working for. I tend to disbelief Exxon Mobiles PR bitches more than I do, say, the Battersea Dogs Home for instance. One is doing good, one is a massive coroporate juggernaut that has consistently tried to stop the public from understanding the truth.
You may try and muddle the facts by writing on here but anyone intelligent enough to be on this site, knows the score.
What id say to you is look at the weather, look at what the scientists are saying - to anyone who works for Exxon - your family is in danger too. Speak out while it can make a difference.

I clicked on the “past the tipping point” link and grabbed this URL from one of VJ’s comments. Gavin from, who is a climatologist after all, is more knowledgable on the issue than is Tim Flannery. There are important considerations (see the point in comment 10 and the counterpoint below comment 24 in that thread), but I think it’s fair to say that the “past the tipping point” phrase is misleading and probably unproductive.

I might also argue that discussion of tipping points in general is somewhat unproductive. If human/economic activities could be forecast perfectly, precise determination of ‘the’ tipping point would be very difficult. Importantly, however, the atmospheric CO2 tipping point calculation requires knowledge of how fast it is reached (among other things), so for planning and risk assessment purposes, climatological tipping points are rather fuzzy. Here’s an RC URL regarding that issue:

Cognitive psychologists (at least some of them) suggest that we dichotomize issues because our brains are evolved to deal with stone age problems. Simple categorization into two groups (in this case, acceptable emissions and dangerous emissions) will not be adequate in addressing most of the complex issues that society faces. Dichotomization throws away useful quantitative information – why should we stress somewhat artificial tipping points when we know that more CO2 means more climate change and, thanks to quantitative models, we can estimate how much more climate change the additional CO2 implies?

depending on what you view as acceptable consequences. There are all kinds of references now to “tipping points” re: overpopulation, destruction of habitat, conventional (toxic) pollution, and so on. Great buzzword that doesn’t really have any meaning unless all the contributing/mitigating factors are taken into account. Ever hear of a little computer called “Deep Thought”?

So I’m unsure of your point, Fern. I’m arguing against simple, unnecessary dichotomization of, for example, consequences into categories like “acceptable” and “not acceptable,” and I don’t know how that relates to Hitchhiker’s Guide. Does your reference suggest that the computations are too difficult?

Deep Thought was the ultimate computer, designed and built (by mice!) to formulate the answer to the Ultimate Question (“you know: Life. The Universe. Everything”). This took an astounding amount of time, and DT arrived at an equally astounding answer, “42”. I think I threw that reference to H2G2 in just because there is an element of the absurd in all of this. Maybe my point was: wouldn’t it be nice if someone could just boil it all down for us into a simple answer like that? Wrap it all up with a bow and say “here’s the answer”.

I can dream, can’t I?

Yeah, dreaming is essential! Einstein said something about problems not being solved via the same level of thinking that created them. And although I think it’s going to be a bit of a struggle, I think there’s room to be optimistic. Some clever people are attacking this AGW problem from a variety of angles and will produce useful results, regardless of the efforts of obstructionists.

With all of the doom & gloom on so many fronts (don’t get me going on Iran …) it can be hard to get out of the bed some mornings. But I am ultimately hopeful that with all of the brainpower concentrating on these issue, answers will be found. I also remain hopeful that our wisdom as a species will improve as a result!

We can try to work out all kinds of scenarios for the future, but one thing is for sure. Human nature is more about watching out for one’s self-interest than our neighbors’ well-being. Our mothers’ injunctions to please share our things, can only go so far. When resources become scarce, which they will, protectionism and wars are bound to raise their ugly heads.

marguerite manteau-rao