By Walter Agnew Moore II

So this morning my newspaper told me that the actress Angelina Jolie was "terrified" that her adopted Cambodian son might step on a land-mine. I was amazed to find out that land-mines were a problem in California, so I read more. It turns out that Jolie is terrified of land-mines because she is moving to Cambodia with her child, and Cambodia is indeed still riddled with the murderous things.

I know what's going through your head. You're thinking there is a simple solution to this problem, right? We pick up the phone, call Pretty Angelina, and say:

"Um, Ms. Jolie, loved your work in Tomb Raider. That's all... no, wait, one more thing: don't move to Cambodia. Bye!"

I mean, how hard is it? Is Angelina Jolie Cambodian? Does she have family there? No. And the poor orphan kid, by definition, probably doesn't either. So what gives?

Maybe she was misquoted, taken out of context. Maybe her entire sentence was "Damn, I had no idea there were THIS MANY land-mines here in Cambodia. I'm terrified my boy will step on one, so to hell with this crazy house idea! Living in Cambodia makes no more sense than hooking up with Billy Bob again. I am SO out of here!"

Maybe she had some noble idea about wanting her child to grow up in his culture, learn his language... still, it seems like going to where the land-mines are when you are terrified of land-mines is a created problem, a self-inflicted wound. Can't she find a Cambodian-speaking nannie in LA?

Poor Angelina. I wish she'd have talked to me first.

Well, right after I sorted out Angelina Jolie's problems, I figured I would work out everything for the rest of the United States, and maybe then tomorrow straighten out the rest of the planet except for Ireland, because they are so cute when they fight and then sing about it, you know, it's all:

"Arrr, the Brits kicked me mother in the stomache,
Me uncle Danny's bleedin' in the ditch,
So I'm at Buckingham Palace
With TNT knickers on,
Smilin' at that Royal son of a—"

Sorry. As I was saying, today, I'll straighten out the US's problems.

Now, everybody is suddenly down on the Saudis these days merely for financing and participating in the intentional mass-murder of American civilians. It's all talk talk talk, ooh them bad Saudis. Yet, nobody touches them. Now, if 15 fanatic Danes had crashed planes into our buildings after having been supported and trained by groups in Denmark, how many *hours* would it take for Copenhagen to quake in fear as yet another bombing run came screaming in low over that Skattegat/Kattegut/North Sea thingy?

Not long.

The difference is, the US needs the Saudis' oil. Or at least, we want it.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to have some big war with Saudi Arabia. I like the few Saudis that I actually know. I used to sneak into bars when I was 18 with some Saudi princes who were studying in the States. They were OK guys. One or two of them had real class. Don't get impressed— the term "prince" means different things different places. Thrifty people like the Welsh only keep one of the things around at any given time, which enhances its value. The Saudis, on the other hand, buy in bulk. "Prince" there means Daddy had enough land or oil to send you away from your uptight conservative home to go drink yourself blind at a university somewhere else. So when you hear "Saudi Prince", think "Texas Frat-Boy" and you won't be far off.

So no, no big war with the Saudis. I do wonder why we care about their oil though. The last time I saw numbers, they said that the US produces about half of the oil it uses. Another time I looked at Miles per Gallon, and it looked like SUVs were burning about twice as much gas as other cars.

My conclusion? If we drove smaller cars, it would not only be good for the environment, but we could also slap the Saudis (their government, not my old drinking buddies) upside the head with impunity if they pulled off any more zany frat-boy stunts like September 11, a useful precondition to stopping such things from happening. Because we wouldn't need anything they had. Which might mean we wouldn't be there guarding it. Which was the main beef people like Osama had with us. etc. etc.

Now, back to the oil-burners. I am not one of these people who want to ban SUVs. That is the kind of approach the French would take to the problem, and nobody ever accused me of being one of those.

The truth is, SUVs can be pretty useful in many ways.

If you have 5 kids and live at the end of a dirt track at the top of a mountain, an SUV is indispensable. Now give a dollar to the Saudi government.

If you are chickenshit and scared of everything, SUVs are probably a little safer overall. Your ancestors may have crossed deserts or survived tiny nasty boats to get here thanks to their courage and determination, but you don't need those character traits now. Give a dollar to the Saudi government.

If you don't really have anything about yourself that impresses others, a shiny big expensive toy should do the trick. Get an SUV, rev the engine at the drive-through, and, oh, give another dollar to the Saudi government.

Because training costs money.

So, if I have no intention of banning SUVs, how do I plan to get Americans into more efficient cars? The American Way: Marketing.

Look at that horrible Hummer. People dream of owning one, but most can't afford it. Come up with a smaller one, a stripped-down pseudo-military car. It could even be a two-seater to give more leg-room, since by tradition that is the maximum number of people you will ever see riding in an SUV. Put all kinds of exposed tubular Nascar-style bracing inside of it, this will reassure the chickenshits and appeal to the Inner Redneck in all of us. Lighten the sucker up to where it gets 50 MPG. For the few who really need the hauling capacity of a larger vehicle, offer a matching trailer that you can tow behind it when you need to tote a sofa somewhere.

Make it somewhat expensive, enough to impress the neighbors. Offer many expensive accesories. Just make sure the thing still burns very little gas.

Give it a military name. It deserves it, merely by existing it would be a strategic asset. How about High-Efficiency Long-Range Transporter, Tactical, or HELRTT. I see these HTLRTTs, these "HellRats(tm)" selling like crack on the corner.

I see Angelina Jolie dropping her now-5-year-old son off to play at the Cambodian Community Center in her customized HellRat(tm) on a clear California day, then scooting off through traffic, yacking on the hands-free cell phone, setting up a transfer of funds to help clear away old land-mines back in Cambodia, where some people have no choice but to live.