Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Condom Carbon Credits
In the news today, an Australian medical expert who
wants a $5,000
baby tax at birth on families with more than two children and
an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Hilariously implausible on its own, the plan's finer points are where it really shines:
Professor [Barry] Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.
Me, I'd rather plant a tree.
The plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers," he wrote.
Perhaps such things are only spoken of in whispers so that people like Prof. Walters won't come over and start talking about condom carbon credits, thus causing everyone involved in the discussion to dissolve in helpless hysterical laughter. Just a thought.
GILMORE|12.10.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Maybe im missing something =
How does taxing people make the earth warm less quickly? Yes, i
understand the idea of the "incentive' for fewer births/less of a
carbon footprint... but what do you do with all of the coal
burning/gas-emitting people who are already here?
Wouldnt a mass plague just be more effective? How about, "kill
yourself and earn tax breaks for your family?"
Episiarch|12.10.07 @ 2:10PM|#
"One must wonder why population control is spoken of today
only in whispers," he wrote.
Maybe because it has the whiff of the gas chamber about it, to
quote Whittaker Chambers?
the innominate one|12.10.07 @ 2:12PM|#
can I get a cash payout for each year I don't reproduce? I'm 36 and have no children. Can we make the payout retroactive to when I hit puberty?
|12.10.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Personally, I'm all in favor of punishing people for having
children as long as I have to pay taxes for public schools,
daycare, SCHIP, and everything else the little bastards need.
As for a mass plague, that wouldn't be effective at all to prevent
global warming. Do you know how much carbon is trapped in a
carbon-based lifeform? Not to mention, with deaths on that scale,
cremation is the only viable answer for disposal. No, think we
should tax people for dying. And for using electricity. And
gasoline. In fact, anything more than living in a cave and eating
rocks should be taxed.
Wait a minute...
Other Matt|12.10.07 @ 2:13PM|#
"kill yourself and earn tax breaks for your
family?"
How about adding "Convert to islam," in front, and
"both in this world and the next, not to mention a while bunch
of virgins just for your use" at the end.
|12.10.07 @ 2:17PM|#
$5,000 baby tax? No problem....that will be offset by Clinton's $5,000 baby bond.
|12.10.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"One must wonder why population control is spoken of today
only in whispers," he wrote.
I'm sorry, but Godwin's Law does not apply in this case. The guy is
talking about population control via social engineering. That is
the very essence of Germany's solution to the
"Jewish Question."
BakedPenguin|12.10.07 @ 2:19PM|#
the Gaunt Man kind of hit on this, but how about just taking away the tax credits / subsidies for having kids? You want kids, fine. You pay for them.
Reinmoose|12.10.07 @ 2:23PM|#
the Gaunt Man kind of hit on this, but how about just taking
away the tax credits / subsidies for having kids? You want kids,
fine. You pay for them.
But, but, but... how will we then propogate Christianity!
|12.10.07 @ 2:25PM|#
The global warming hoax is not a joke, if we don't stand up to it proposals like this are going to seam less and less insane to policymakers.
|12.10.07 @ 2:27PM|#
"One must wonder why population control is spoken of today
only in whispers," he wrote.
Perhaps because prospect of the Total State dictating family
composition, issuing procreation licenses, and disposing of the
surplus population are among the very few things that will actually
make people stop and think that perhaps, on the whole, there are a
few things that Our Masters should not control.
|12.10.07 @ 2:28PM|#
What happens if can't afford the tax? Do they seize the child? Put a lien on it? Shoot one of your other kids?
|12.10.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Perhaps because prospect of the Total State dictating family
composition, issuing procreation licenses, and disposing of the
surplus population are among the very few things that will actually
make people stop and think that perhaps, on the whole, there are a
few things that Our Masters should not control.
QFMFT. The idea of population control and eugenics carried out by
the state sends chills down my spine.
LarryA|12.10.07 @ 2:31PM|#
In the news today, an Australian medical expert who wants a
$5,000 baby tax at birth on families with more than two children
and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Now say, "It's for the children!" with a straight face.
"One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only
in whispers," he (high-profile doctor Garry Egger)
wrote.
From the article: And he implied the Federal Government should
ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like
those in China and
India.
Sort of answers itself.
Australian medical expert/high-profile doctor Garry
Egger
Ever notice that a medical degree, like Hollywood movie star
status, confers the self-awarded title of "expert on
everything?"
"child-rich families"
Term-of-the-day award.
I still don't get how you save the planet by taking people's
money away
Only people who can't afford (thus who can't be forced to pay) the
tax could have a third child. Which is pretty much where the
birthrate is trending anyway.
|12.10.07 @ 2:33PM|#
In one of Kurt Vonnegut's books, the Chinese imposed a
child-tax, with the amount doubling for each subsequent
child.
The richest man in China had just paid something like $32 million
to have his eight child.
hardass|12.10.07 @ 2:40PM|#
What happens if can't afford the tax? Do they seize the
child? Put a lien on it? Shoot one of your other kids?
Naw, they just cut one of your balls off - or both.
|12.10.07 @ 2:48PM|#
The voters in Australia just threw out their Prime minister and told the new one to sign the Kyoto treaty. So proposals like this one are going to sound more and more normal as time goes by. The Tories in England apparently support rationing of airplane tickets. Can mandatory carpooling, vacation rationing, gasoline rationing, elimination of "excessive" recreational and entertainment events, etc. etc. be far behind?
|12.10.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said
it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.
I think this is the first time I find I am in agreement with an
group with the word "Family" in their name
MattXIV|12.10.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Actually, in vacuo, you should get a carbon credit for creating
children, as well as contributing to their weight gain, as humans
are about 18% carbon by weight and that number is probably even
higher in fat tissue.
Population control has no direct relationship with reducing GHG
concentrations and changes in reproductive rates take sufficiently
long to manifest in significant changes in the population level
that they're of debateable value for cutting emissions -
Australia's death rate is only 0.756% per year. If you actually
have a system where GHG emssions are regulated via cap and trade or
tax, the cost will already be internalized, so such a tax would be
redundant for limiting GHG emissions and punative to those who
reproduce. This sounds like the population control people are just
trying to cash in on concerns about global warming to further their
own pet cause.
hardass|12.10.07 @ 3:03PM|#
QFMFT. The idea of population control and eugenics carried
out by the state sends chills down my spine.
There is already population control by the state; but reproduction
is not restricted so much as it is encouraged by means of various
tax subsidies and credits.
Why is it that second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, and all the
other negative results of just about everything people do are
considered to be "externalities" that they must be held accountable
for - but not children? Light a cigarette within fifty feet of
someone and you're subjecting them to the risk of cancer and every
health calamity known to mankind - but bring another little bastard
into the world to reduce everyone's share of the breathable air and
other resources and you get a tax credit.
|12.10.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Creech - I'm glad I live in the last reactionary English-speaking nation left. 'Cuz all that hang wringing the other English-speaking nations do would chap my hands in a week.
|12.10.07 @ 3:23PM|#
"Why is it that second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, and all the
other negative results of just about everything people do are
considered to be "externalities" that they must be held accountable
for - but not children? Light a cigarette within fifty feet of
someone and you're subjecting them to the risk of cancer and every
health calamity known to mankind - but bring another little bastard
into the world to reduce everyone's share of the breathable air and
other resources and you get a tax credit."
Is it an externality when said child grows up and pays taxes to
support your dumb ass after you are too old to work? Is it an
externality when said child grows up to invent something useful? If
children and humans in general are such an externality, why not
just stop having them all together and let the entire race die off?
Or better yet, just start killing live people now and quicken
things up a bit?
|12.10.07 @ 3:33PM|#
"One must wonder why population control is spoken of today
only in whispers," he wrote.
Perhaps because prospect of the Total State dictating family
composition, issuing procreation licenses, and disposing of the
surplus population are among the very few things that will actually
make people stop and think that perhaps, on the whole, there are a
few things that Our Masters should not control.
R C Dean wins the thread!
|12.10.07 @ 3:34PM|#
But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry
Egger. "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today
only in whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.
Maybe because poor people (which would be the hardest hit) also
vote, you "high-profile doctor" and miscellaneous nitwit.
The idea of imposing a tax on babies reeks a lot like class
warfare to me: it would surely decrease the number of
babies on those populations that cannot afford such a tax, i.e the
poor. This is how the greenies think, guys: they are not simple
tree-huggers, they are the worst kind of social engineers, not far
away from those of the eugenics movement.
|12.10.07 @ 3:56PM|#
So now infants are the new carbon dioxide?
Wow...just, wow. And people say libertarians are devoid of
empathy.
New World Dan|12.10.07 @ 4:31PM|#
On the other hand, I support population control for reasons that
have nothing to do with global warming. We live in a world of
finite resources. The fewer people there are competing for those
resources, the more each person gets. If the population isn't
voluntarily controlled, war, disease and despotic governements
eventually will do the job.
That said, I've got no problem with eliminating government programs
that encourage procreation. Hell, catch me on the right day, and I
might even support free sterilization for anyone that wants it.
But, I'm not about to start overtly taxing children either. I
suppose you could say I support child neutral policies.
Disclaimer: I have one child (she's awesome!) and a vasectomy.
Paul|12.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#
The plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger.
"One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in
whispers," he wrote.
Same reason we speak of any crazy Orwellian plan in only
whispers.
Oh, by the way, now that Global Warming(tm) is the new religion,
isn't this kind of stuff the next obvious step?
Paul|12.10.07 @ 4:51PM|#
The idea of imposing a tax on babies reeks a lot like class
warfare to me: it would surely decrease the number of babies on
those populations that cannot afford such a tax, i.e the
poor.
Francisco Torres, they would be exempt, so the tax would be shifted
somewhere else.
Paul|12.10.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Hell, catch me on the right day, and I might even support
free sterilization for anyone that wants it.
Psst. New World Dan: We already have it. You can go do it right
now. Shall I put you down for next Wednesday?
Paul|12.10.07 @ 4:58PM|#
health calamity known to mankind - but bring another little
bastard into the world to reduce everyone's share of the breathable
air and other resources and you get a tax credit."
John, we have this little Ponzi Scheme called "Social Security". If
you want yours, you want my "little bastard" to grow up and start
producing resources so you can get your flipping cheque. So shut
up, eat your tapioca, and be glad my little bastard will be
supporting you.
|12.10.07 @ 4:59PM|#
On the other hand, I support population control for reasons
that have nothing to do with global warming. We live in a world of
finite resources. The fewer people there are competing for those
resources, the more each person gets.
A recent World Bank appraisal -- discussed by Ron Bailey here -- finds
that, of the total wealth of the world, only 4% is found in natural
resources. A full 18% is found in physical capital improvements
made by those awful people you want to see fewer of. And the 78%
balance? That is the people -- their educations, their
institutions, their innovations, their productivity.
If the population isn't voluntarily controlled, war, disease
and despotic governements eventually will do the job.
I am all for voluntary controls on population. In particular, how
many children a household has should be entirely within their
voluntary control, without encouragement or discouragement from any
state actor.
highnumber|12.10.07 @ 5:01PM|#
On the other hand, I support population control for reasons
that have nothing to do with global warming. We live in a world of
finite resources. The fewer people there are competing for those
resources, the more each person gets. If the population isn't
voluntarily controlled, war, disease and despotic governements
eventually will do the job.
Sounds logical on the surface, but history demonstrates that the
opposite is true.
Paul|12.10.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Gilmore:
How does taxing people make the earth warm less quickly? Yes, i
understand the idea of the "incentive' for fewer births/less of a
carbon footprint...
We could make the rather direct assumption-- the assumption that
libertarians make from the start, and liberals make selectively
when it benefits them-- that any taxation slows down the economy,
and as such will slow down global warming. Make further assumptions
from here...
the innominate one|12.10.07 @ 5:03PM|#
Paul, you should learn to read, or least learn to read more carefully.
|12.10.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Personally, I'm all in favor of punishing people for having
children as long as I have to pay taxes for public schools,
daycare, SCHIP, and everything else the little bastards
need.
As long as you're willing to forgo any and all government benefits
paid for by the taxes of my working children and grandchildren (and
everybody else's -- which is to say all productive members of
society) when you're a retired geezer -- then it's a deal.
Mike Laursen|12.10.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Shoot one of your other kids?
The only logical thing to do would be to shoot the family member
who has the biggest carbon footprint. Or better yet, bury them
alive, to sequester their carbon and avoid outgassing from the
bullet.
hardass|12.10.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Is it an externality when said child grows up and pays taxes
to support your dumb ass after you are too old to work?
You mean providing I don't work myself into an early grave paying
taxes to support your little darlings, because you don't feel like
wearing a raincoat when you manage to get lucky, JohnBoy? Maybe if
I got to keep my money instead of having it taken away to
help pay for the irresponsibilities of others, I could save enough
to take care of myself in my old age - that is, if the government
and the banking cartels weren't busy robbing me of the purchasing
power of my savings to help finance all the goodies for the ever
expanding population. Dumbass!
Paul|12.10.07 @ 5:56PM|#
the innominate one
I presume you're referring to "his" disclaimer? Got that. I'm
talking about castration.
Paul|12.10.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Or wait, innominate, maybe you're referring to NWD's "free sterilization" qualifier. If that's the case, touche. I didn't absorb that.
|12.10.07 @ 6:21PM|#
Paul:
Francisco Torres, they would be exempt [poor people], so the
tax would be shifted somewhere else.
Still have the same problem: privileging one group over another.
Besides, giving exemptions to a group would defeat the purpose of
the measure.
I take you find the measure laughable?
Oh, by the way, now that Global Warming(tm) is the new
religion, isn't this kind of stuff the next obvious
step?
Yep. It's totally Hayekian: Follows the "Road to Serfdom" to the
T.
|12.10.07 @ 6:35PM|#
I have two kids, 1 computer. Probably don't "need" either. Not sure if I want to give up the computer, though.
|12.10.07 @ 6:37PM|#
On the other hand, I support population control for reasons
that have nothing to do with global warming. We live in a world of
finite resources. The fewer people there are competing for those
resources, the more each person gets.
Your thinking stems from a misunderstanding of economics: the law
of marginal value would make the idea that less people can have
more resources somewhat silly. Why would that be important? How
many tons of coal do you expect one person to want, or to use? The
important thing is the freedom to trade for things - that is how
resources get allocated. The less of something there is, the more
will its price be, which would encourage people to trade it more or
to find cheaper alternatives.
Bigger populations are a prerequisite for division of labor, which
increases productivity, making more goods available to more people.
Tiny populations, especially if isolated, would have to produce
many goods without specialization, which means having to spend a
lot of time to make a lousy shirt (this is why aboriginal tribes do
not have much clothing or better housing; they spend much of their
time gathering food).
I do not house such romantic notions of smaller populations in my
mind, precisely because the things I enjoy right now exist because
there are so many of us.
Paul|12.10.07 @ 6:38PM|#
I take you find the measure laughable?
Yes, I do find it laughable. But we've been here before. And
someone (possibly Paul Ehrlich)* made an eerily similar quote,
talking about population control being a dirty secret-- that we
need to take on the subject head on and quit being squeamish about
it.
* too busy to look it up-- the innominate one has rightly pointed
out that I'm mixing work with my posting. I need to focus on what's
important. So I'll try to be better about putting work aside when
I'm reading the threads.
the innominate one|12.10.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Paul:
I was referring to two things:
New World Dan states he's already had a vasectomy, so your offer to
him is superfluous.
You bash John for a statement you attribute to him, but is actually
John quoting "hardass".
Joel|12.10.07 @ 6:56PM|#
Why do people who assume humans are such a plague on the earth
not set a good example for others and just kill themselves?
Oh, I remember. Too much carbon release when they decompose. Got
it.
Paul|12.10.07 @ 7:01PM|#
innominate:
Thanks. I was on the first one, and the second was actually a typo.
I knew it was hardass, but I read John's response, and by the time
I typed out my response, I had John in my head.
But like I said, you are correct, I was breezing through too
quickly. Criticism accepted. Posting on H&R first, work second.
Priorities.
Neu Mejican|12.10.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Francisco Torres,
I do not house such romantic notions of smaller populations in
my mind, precisely because the things I enjoy right now exist
because there are so many of us.
This does not mean that the curve does not begin to turn down at
some population density in the future. It is unlikely to be a
strictly monotonic relationship.
Paul|12.10.07 @ 7:10PM|#
NM
I think that ultimately, it's hard to say. It would seem reasonable
that it will. But the fantastic and amazing thing about resources
is that in a way, most* resources don't exist as such until human
ingenuity is applied to them so that they become useful.
*water, air of course are examples which appear to be finite in
amount and quality. But I dare not speculate how.
|12.10.07 @ 7:19PM|#
This does not mean that the curve does not begin to turn
down at some population density in the future. It is unlikely to be
a strictly monotonic relationship.
You cannot apply calculus to what amounts to purposeful action, Neu
Mejican: that is the mistake of neoclassical economists. The issue
here is choice: people choose, which means that once a resource
becomes a certain price, entrepreneurs will offer alternatives, or
people change their habits. It would be impossible to predict what
will be people's purchasing choices in the future.
Also, have you not notices that as people become more richer, they
tend to have less children? So the best population control program
there could be is actually economic progress, and not coercive
actions.
|12.10.07 @ 7:38PM|#
Paul,
Even when it comes to water (fresh water, I imagine), the same
economic laws apply: if more people demand water, then it simply
becomes more expensive, making people use it more rationally. In
water-poor areas, for example, the expense of gathering water (in
man-hours) makes it rational for people to waste as little of it as
possible.
Even so, higher prices creates incentives for entrepreneurs to
device alternatives to current water processing and distribution
techniques. For example, there will be a time, once the DAMNED
government takes their lousy hands off water distribution, when you
will be able to buy treated but non-potable water for your toilet
and bath, and drinkable water for yourself and your ice cubes.
Right now, totally potable water is irrationally piped to your home
to feed all systems, at a fixed rate, courtesy of the "I cannot
economically calculate if my life depended on it" politicians.
|12.10.07 @ 9:13PM|#
John
"Is it an externality when said child grows up and pays taxes to
support your dumb ass after you are too old to work? Is it an
externality when said child grows up to invent something
useful?"
1. I've got a retirement scheme seperate from Social Security - so
the little guy doesn't have to support me. i didn't ask him to in
the first place - that was forced on him by others.
2. Who do you think is supporting the little brat until he gets old
enough to start paying into S/S? It ain't just his FUCKING parents
is it? No, I, who am childless, am shelling out MY hard-earned cash
to support someone else's green-nosed sprog! Education, tax
credits, etc, and those getting the largest proportion of my tax
money are usually trhe one's that have children
"accidentally".
3. The vast majority of us (including, and maybe even especially
myself) are just good enough to keep things running along - those
that advance civilization are fairly rare. And let;s not forget
about those who actively hurt us, from high profile peopple like
Hitler, Pol Pot, etc to just your average garden variety psychos
that the world is full of. I'm just not willing to pay out to
others on the off cnahce that their children will be useful to
me.
4. Why is it that for everydecision *I* make, I must internalize
the costs and yet others get to pass them on to me (especially when
children are involved)? I just bought an expensive car - no one
else is going to help me with the payment. You just had an
expensive child - really, what do I care?
5. I don't want to tell others how to live or how many children to
have, but if I have to keep paying for it I'm going to have to
start, if only to protect myself. This applies to children,
healthcare, retirement planning, and even now to your purchase of a
house.
Your decisions on these things affect me in a non-minor way thanks
to your government's actions.
highnumber|12.10.07 @ 10:14PM|#
Agammamon, you've laid out a lot of what pisses people off about
libertarians. No, you don't have to be concerned about the welfare
of children, but you should be.
In short, you are suffering from Sobchak Syndrome. You're not
wrong. You're just an asshole.
Dan T.|12.10.07 @ 10:39PM|#
highnumber, you would not believe the erection your post just gave me. I'd be proud to have you as a guest blogger at the Center for Advanced Sarcasm, anytime.
LarryA|12.10.07 @ 10:49PM|#
but bring another little bastard into the world to reduce
everyone's share of the breathable air and other resources and you
get a tax credit
People don't "reduce everyone's share of the breathable air" for
any longer than it takes to exhale. They just add CO2 to make it
easier to grow plants.
We live in a world of finite resources. The fewer people there
are competing for those resources, the more each person
gets.
Historically, the more people we have producing stuff from the
resources, the more everyone gets.
If the population isn't voluntarily controlled, war, disease
and despotic governments eventually will do the job.
Please name one non-despotic government that has a successful
policy to "voluntarily" reduce population growth. Note that
currently the nations with lower birth rates are the wealthiest
ones, where the government is bitching because there aren't
enough babies.
Even when it comes to water (fresh water, I imagine), the same
economic laws apply: if more people demand water, then it simply
becomes more expensive, making people use it more
rationally.
See "air" above. No one "uses" water, they simply borrow it for a
day or so. The problem isn't in finding water, it's cleaning it so
we can use it again.
We use only limited amounts of gray water because it's cheaper and
safer to clean to portability all the water piped to your house
than it is to have two piping and delivery systems.
MJ|12.10.07 @ 11:06PM|#
I never said that everyone who takes global warming seriously hates humanity, but everyone who hates humanity takes global warming seriously. (apologies to Ambrose Bierce).
|12.11.07 @ 6:39AM|#
If Global Warming is the new religion and Carbon credits are the
new indulgences.
I really don't want to know what the new inquisition will look
like.
|12.11.07 @ 8:26AM|#
flix,
Easy to figure out... "Have you ever ridden in an SUV? Yes? BURY
HIM AT THE STAKE!"
highnumber|12.11.07 @ 11:00AM|#
I assume that's a fake Dan T, since he usually doesn't write about his erections, so I'll take this moment to say, "Bravo, spoofers!" It is so brave AND witty to spoof someone's handle. Gosh, I wish I had the temerity to pull off such a feat. A-freaking-mazing that you pull that off so often. What's your secret? Is it a lack of imagination? Lack of intelligence, wit? I eagerly await your answer.
Neu Mejican|12.11.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Fracisco Torres,
become more richer
Don't worry, I am from New Mexico, that's how we say it most of the
time 'round here. Really.
You cannot apply calculus to what amounts to purposeful action,
Neu Mejican: that is the mistake of neoclassical economists. ...The
issue here is choice: people choose, which means that once a
resource becomes a certain price, entrepreneurs will offer
alternatives, or people change their habits. It would be impossible
to predict what will be people's purchasing choices in the
future.
I predict people will be purchasing food, water, shelter and
entertainment. For some of those items, their form is up for
innovation/alternatives, for some, not so much.
I don't disagree with your general point, it just breaks down at
the extremes.
Neu Mejican|12.11.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Francisco Torres,
You may find this is an interesting article, I would think, given
your position on things.
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/12/culture-speeds.html
"We found very many human genes undergoing selection," says
anthropologist Gregory Cochran of the University of Utah, a member
of the team that analyzed the 3.9 million genes showing the most
variation. "Most are very recent, so much so that the rate of human
evolution over the past few thousand years is far greater than it
has been over the past few million years."
"We believe that this can be explained by an increase in the
strength of selection as people became agriculturalists-a major
ecological change-and a vast increase in the number of favorable
mutations as agriculture led to increased population size," he
adds.
Edward|12.12.07 @ 12:20PM|#
highnumber | December 11, 2007, 11:00am | #
I assume that's a fake Dan T, since he usually doesn't write about his erections, so I'll take this moment to say, "Bravo, spoofers!" It is so brave AND witty to spoof someone's handle. Gosh, I wish I had the temerity to pull off such a feat. A-freaking-mazing that you pull that off so often. What's your secret? Is it a lack of imagination? Lack of intelligence, wit? I eagerly await your answer.
But I guess it's perfectly fine for you and the others to spoof
people over at Urkobold, right? Go wash your pussy, fucking
hypocrite.
highnumber|12.12.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Excuse me?
Excuse me?!
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Do you think "Edweirdoooo" is you, Edward?
You're so vain.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245