I have to completely agree that the driving force of this misery is overpopulation. There simply are not enough resources to go around. Those who have the power to live with basic human decencies are going to use all the power they have to hold on to them and to raise their standard of living. It necessarily follows that a large proportion if not most of all people will live and will continue to live in dismal conditions without the basic decencies of human civilization.

Even if the developed nations were to send more than a token amount of aid, pouring money into the situation without seriously addressing the root problem of global overpopulation will never make more than a dent in the problem.

We can send food aid to temporarily fill hungry bellies, make microloans to set up meager businesses in the slums, send some volunteers and educators out there to dig latrines, build labor-savoring devices, set up health clinics and so on.

But to the extent that this merely saves lives and brings a relative level of 'success' (still abject poverty by Western standards, but avoidance of starvation anyway) to some members of a marginal society, this 'success' will be wiped out in successive generations of population gain.

The tide can only turn when population peaks. Which will happen in this century, but if there will be any resources left by that time, and the state of human condition when we get there, remains to be seen. And to think it all could have been avoided with a worldwide campaign for population control. History's verdict will be that we could eradicate the smallpox virus, but we could not limit our own numbers.

What a ridiculous statement. The Scandinavians can support their high standards of living, level of education (free, at that), level of happiness and social supports precisely because they have low fertility. American-style hyperfertility leads to overpopulation, ignorance, and pollution.

Scandinavia is not exactly dying out, and long before underpopulation became an issue they could easily sustain their population through any combination of immigration policy or government programs to encourage higher fertility, neither of which is warranted at present.

Agree with serai--if this "cartoon," as you call it, isn't the best Hollywood film of the year, what is? Tropic Thunder? Hulk? This hasn't exactly been a stand-out year in cinema, and I don't think "best of the year" is terribly hyperbolic in this context. Best of the century, maybe, or best animated film ever, but I haven't been hearing those.

You've largely missed the point on this film. It was artsy, cute, and beautiful at the same time while delivering a powerful but mostly non-preachy (show don't tell) message on the environment, consumption, and overpopulation, the last two being topics that are pretty much off-limits in the American media as a whole, to say nothing of animated films.

But pat yourself on the back Andy, you're better than all that cartoony stuff.

in the Oklahoma case at least. They picked a weak theory of invasion of privacy when the law in Oklahoma was not settled in that context. Surely they could have done better. A crotch-shot of this type involving a 16-year-old girl is certainly child pornography as defined under federal law, and would violate a host of federal crimes. Is Oklahoma's criminal code so backwards?

1. Graner was regularly emailing the abuse photos together with sadistic descriptions of his role to his family. Yet all we get is a warm-and-fuzzy softball questions for them? They are responsible for this too. Yes he was family, but he was a little Eichmann in the family. They should have reported him or blown the whistle. Did they even tell him to stop?

If they had blown the whistle they might have not only stopped and prevented the torture of many Iraqi detainees but might have prevented Graner from getting anywhere near the level of punishment he ended up with. Failing to act in this case is not a crime but is morally repugnant.

2. Graner was in SHU. You are not sentenced to serve in an SHU (that would be "cruel and unusual"). You are put there for administrative purposes. The article rightfully bemoans the rigid SHU conditions, but does nothing to inquire as to how he got there. It only takes at face value his self-reported statement that it was for having one too many magazines or forgetting a bar of soap. This I find beyond belief, especially from a brutal man with a proven history of brutalizing those under his control.

I don't know much about military prisons. I do know in civilian lockup SHU is generally given to those who are so violent that they are out of control or those with a persistent history of serious infractions. SHU is abused and there are terrible cases of mentally ill individuals who are kept in SHU for years without treatment. But here we have no explanation. Salon does not have his disciplinary records and does not report that it even tried to obtain them. If it did I am willing to bet the farm that he's not in lockup for dropping the soap.

No sympathy for Graner here. I don't have that much sympathy to go around.

Your beloved Charles is still behind bars because he sexually and physically tortured helpless detainees. He should be in bars much longer than 27 months for such an act, as should his superiors. And if karma really was a son of a gun, you would be too. Is it that hard to figure that out?