While perhaps a relatively minor quibble, it seems to me to be quite a stretch of the imagination to suppose that US intervention in World War I is the direct cause of decades of horrors, as Johnson states:

If there is one historical generalization that the passage of time has validated, it is that the world could not help being better off if the American president had not believed such nonsense and if the United States had minded its own business in the war between the British and German empires. We might well have avoided Nazism, the Bolshevik Revolution, and another 30 to 40 years of the exploitation of India, Indonesia, Indochina, Algeria, Korea, the Philippines, Malaya and virtually all of Africa by European, American and Japanese imperialists.

It's inherently impossible to prove a counter-factual, but it strikes me as highly improbable that things would have been so much better had the US continued its policy of neutrality. Take the Bolshevik Revolution: the US declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917. The first Russian revolution of that year happened in February, showing that the collapse of the Tsarist order preceded American intervention in the war. While the Bolshevik Revolution did not happen till November (October in the old calendar), it seems very questionable to claim that seven months of US participation in the war caused the Bolshevik Revolution. There is no evidence of which I know that any of the relevant parties, including the Germans and the Kerensky government in Russia, changed their behavior during the intervening seven months due to the knowledge that the United States was at war with Germany (the US only declared war on Austria-Hungary in December).

The rest of the situations mentioned I imagine Johnson attributes to the Versailles Treaty. Did US participation in it lead to Nazism or the perpetuation of British and French imperialism (and Japanese and American, in the Philippines)? That hard to say, but it is undeniable that that the major imperial powers, France and Britain, were in no mood to loose their empires at the end of the Great War. Did the US ultimately enable them to maintain their colonies at Versailles? Assuredly, for in the end Wilson did not torpedo the many questionable clauses in the treaty. However, neither did the American delegation author these clauses. Likewise, it would be going too far to absolutely deny the Wilsonian Fourteen Points and the effect it had on national self-determination and the creation of new countries. The great limitation, of course, is that new countries were only created in Central and Eastern Europe, while German colonies overseas and Ottoman possessions merely changed hands.

More broadly, perhaps the American view of its superiority has been gravely harmful, as Johnson attempts to show in the majority of the article. However, it is a disservice to the argument to claim that US intervention in World War I is the crowning example of the harm caused. This may be a storm in a tea cup, but this claim threw me off and begged for a response.

The man is named Guy Goma and he is originally from the Congo. More details here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4774429.stm. Anyway, the newspapers here in the UK have had a field day tweaking the BBC over the mix up.

Your predictions remind me of the situation of the tobacco industry, which for years was widely seen in the US as being benign and respected. How things have changed! While much of the change was due to mounting medical evidence of the harm of smoking and the public health cost, I would hazard to guess that it was the massive lawsuits against them in the 90s that truly established a changed landscape in America. You predict that Exxon will suffer a similar fate, but this will only happen if Exxon is shown to be similarly lying to the American people about the negative impact of their product. While this is probably the case (Exxon is a massive corporation and surely has many very smart people that understand anthropogenic climate change), surely they have learned from the tobacco industry and do not have any incrimination records lying about.

Age seems to be less of an issue in other sports. I don't think the English FA, for example, has a minimum age for soccer players. For better or worse this seems to be standard practice in non American (or North American?) teams, having 18 or 19 year olds playing for professional teams, and there doesn't seem to be much dissatisfaction with this. Should people in the US just accept that top athletes aren't learning much at university and cut the charade of student athletes in the big money sports?

Last year in Hyde Park there were several incidents where gangs of kids, boys or girls, both good and bad students, would gang up and attack people. They went after guys in their 20s walking alone, in broad daylight, and they would often hit them with a pipe or board. I don't know what the general resolution was (if there has been one), but perhaps the same issues were at play as mentioned in this interesting piece.

While about a man, I'm surprised no one has mentioned The 40 Year-Old Virgin and its success.