Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

Funny, I got the impression you were the one opposing nuclear power as a solution. It seems your criticism of every solution is to define it as part of the problem.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf.

And I never said any of that. I called you out for claiming that solar panels are clean and tidy compared to nuclear, and safe from systematic problems that come with major corporations cutting corners on a massive scale. The most efficient solar cells today contain heavy metals in them like cadmium. If you replace the world's current electric capacity with nothing but solar panels, the disposal of old panels will NOT be a problem one can ignore. The temptation to save costs by disposing of them cheaply and ignoring contamination will be as great as it is with any other industry you decry today. Sure, the disposal is a problem that can be easily handled, but so is the disposal of old nuclear fuel...

"One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years."

When you say 'deadly', I say 'useful'. Here in Canada we run our nuclear reactors on fuel rods made from American nuclear 'waste'. Simply put, any waste that still has high radioactivity is also still useful as a power source. It's not waste to be stored for eons, it's future fuel being stored for later use.

"Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy."

Right, and your the one suggesting we trust Bubba not to dump his cadmium filled solar panels in his backyard somewhere to save a few bucks.

Both solar and nuclear have their own issues, but we have methods of handling those problems for nuclear already, today. For solar the biggest unsolved problem is that they just don't work well enough at a reasonable price. Maybe someday they'll improve enough to supplement the nuclear delivered base load, but until then nuclear is a very desirable replacement for coal and oil.

As I understand it, the church forbids priests from absolutely all forms of sexual outlet. Even the most harmless possible sexual release, masturbation, is seen as something that god hates for some reason. So, why not try castration? Sexual desire has real physiological causes that are well understood. It's not like even they believe it's a spiritual affliction any more, there is just too much medical understanding.

And if you could absolutely never have any kind of sexual release, why would you WANT to be tormented by constant desire? Perhaps Catholics will claim there's something noble in having the desire and denying it; that it's a test. But they've got to find some more responsible way to play their little game of temptation and self-denial. Because the rules of this one lead to a child being raped whenever one of them loses his truly pointless battle with his own libido. (or more often to a good wank followed by sobbing and self-flagellation)

Best of all, surgical and chemical castration really work. You really can murder your sex drive by taking the right drugs or snipping the right bit.

Covering up the entire face regardless of the weather is a pointless practice based on stupid medieval ideas about chastity and temptation. It's far more likely that it's the woman's family imposing it on her rather than it being her choice. Or maybe, once she's been brainwashed enough by her upbringing the imposition is no longer necessary, which is for all intents and purposes the same thing.

However, anything that's going to prevent her from learning the language and assimilating is just going to make the problem worse, so I don't think this ban is practical at all. Would be better to ban homeschooling and ecclesiastical primary schools so that people can't be brainwashed so easily. If you grow up only ever hearing X and never hearing Y or Z you're likely to end up a dogmatic fundamentalist. Public schools always have students with a wide variety of beliefs so that's a good place for students to be. A school full of precisely like-minded students and teachers just towing the line is a terrible place for students to be.

@NetRunner . There is a difference!!!! finding a $20 bill in the street is not stealing. Taking the bike from in front of the store is. Its very simple, no need for confusion.What a person does after finding the money is a seperate moral decision. I dont think that guy took the bike home and then tried to go find the rightful owner, even if he did, he still stole the bike in the first place. You ask "why is there a difference?" I say, There just is.... Why ask why?

As far as me bringing up race. Gimme a break. I was bringing up species. There is a big difference. Clearly this video is a race arguement waitng to happen, but I was not going there. I really was tring to say that man and beast are completly different, and reject the comparison of tempting a man with a kids bicycle to a piece of cheese in a rat trap.

I dont think everything has to be taken to the extreme. Nobody got murderd, blown up or decapitated. So we dont have to discuss this video like those things did happen . And I think most of the world agrees with that.
Your arguement that tempting people to break the law should net a person shared responsabilty with the criminal wont be very popular with a scantily clad rape victim.


>> ^NetRunner:
@csnel, I started typing "I'm not saying there's no difference", but as soon as I wrote that I thought, "why is there a difference?"
I mean, unless I thought I dropped the $20, it's taking someone else's property. Why doesn't that condemn me to whatever trap the owner of the $20 bill laid for someone who stole his money?
I do understand that we don't tend to think of bills of currency as a piece of our property, since we don't care which $20 bill we have in our wallet so long as we have the total amount we expect in there, but still unless you think you're the one who dropped it, what right do you have to take something that isn't yours?
Anyways, back to the animal comparison, you did actually bring race, or at least genetics, into it when you said:

You are suggesting that he is just geneticly unable to not take the bait, Not smart enough to leave it alone.

I'm suggesting that humans are animal enough to be susceptible to temptation. A bike wouldn't serve as bait for me, in part because I don't need a bike, but in large part because I'm not in a situation where I think stealing it meets my threshold ratio for risk vs. reward. From my point of view, it's a huge risk for almost no reward at all, so it doesn't even tempt me as an opportunity to exploit, much less wrestle over the morality of it -- I just wouldn't even be tempted. Other people's assessments might be very different, and an unattended bike might be a big score for them, and they may have already found their own moral justification for taking it (e.g. it's his damn fault for leaving it unguarded!).
I'm not saying the guy stealing the bike is blameless, I'm just saying he's not the only person engaged in a criminal act in the video. The booby-trap filmmaker should be on the hook for any injuries he inflicts on his victims.
To me, there's a scary implication in holding the filmmaker blameless -- it opens you up to a situation where we're saying there's no moral prohibition on actively trying to trap and harm people who're susceptible to temptation. Once you open that door, it's easy for me to see that anyone could be tempted into stealing (or breaking some other libertarian-approved law), provided you offered a large enough incentive, or created a situation that reduced their perception of the risk. If you're also free do incur as much damage as you like on victims that you entrap, then you're effectively legalizing murder.

@csnel, I started typing "I'm not saying there's no difference", but as soon as I wrote that I thought, "why is there a difference?"

I mean, unless I thought I dropped the $20, it's taking someone else's property. Why doesn't that condemn me to whatever trap the owner of the $20 bill laid for someone who stole his money?

I do understand that we don't tend to think of bills of currency as a piece of our property, since we don't care which $20 bill we have in our wallet so long as we have the total amount we expect in there, but still unless you think you're the one who dropped it, what right do you have to take something that isn't yours?

Anyways, back to the animal comparison, you did actually bring race, or at least genetics, into it when you said:

You are suggesting that he is just geneticly unable to not take the bait, Not smart enough to leave it alone.

I'm suggesting that humans are animal enough to be susceptible to temptation. A bike wouldn't serve as bait for me, in part because I don't need a bike, but in large part because I'm not in a situation where I think stealing it meets my threshold ratio for risk vs. reward. From my point of view, it's a huge risk for almost no reward at all, so it doesn't even tempt me as an opportunity to exploit, much less wrestle over the morality of it -- I just wouldn't even be tempted. Other people's assessments might be very different, and an unattended bike might be a big score for them, and they may have already found their own moral justification for taking it (e.g. it's his damn fault for leaving it unguarded!).

I'm not saying the guy stealing the bike is blameless, I'm just saying he's not the only person engaged in a criminal act in the video. The booby-trap filmmaker should be on the hook for any injuries he inflicts on his victims.

To me, there's a scary implication in holding the filmmaker blameless -- it opens you up to a situation where we're saying there's no moral prohibition on actively trying to trap and harm people who're susceptible to temptation. Once you open that door, it's easy for me to see that anyone could be tempted into stealing (or breaking some other libertarian-approved law), provided you offered a large enough incentive, or created a situation that reduced their perception of the risk. If you're also free do incur as much damage as you like on victims that you entrap, then you're effectively legalizing murder.

This was great!

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
hello world,
here's the deal:
people cheat sometimes.
people have a hard time resisting temptation.
people can be over indulgent.
people can be assholes.
people can be bad partners.
people can marry people they don't really love.
people can marry people they do really love, and lose consideration.
people sometimes cast aside all consideration for gratification, sometimes, we call that addiction.
sometimes, people are famous and all manner of vices become widely available in large quantities.
sometimes, people's lives become metaphorical train wrecks.
sometimes, people like to watch train wrecks and feel something.
sometimes, people invent sports and like to watch that too.
sometimes, people are moved by sports and the people who are good at playing them.
sometimes, people are moved when sports fanaticism collides with human nature.
and sometimes, grown men cry on television.

hello world,
here's the deal:
people cheat sometimes.
people have a hard time resisting temptation.
people can be over indulgent.
people can be assholes.
people can be bad partners.
people can marry people they don't really love.
people can marry people they do really love, and lose consideration.
people sometimes cast aside all consideration for gratification, sometimes, we call that addiction.
sometimes, people are famous and all manner of vices become widely available in large quantities.
sometimes, people's lives become metaphorical train wrecks.
sometimes, people like to watch train wrecks and feel something.
sometimes, people invent sports and like to watch that too.
sometimes, people are moved by sports and the people who are good at playing them.
sometimes, people are moved when sports fanaticism collides with human nature.
and sometimes, grown men cry on television.

>> ^cybrbeast:
To all those people here supporting the spying of the kids' activities with or without the webcam: How would you like it if your employer used these measures? You are probably using his computer during times in which you should be working, but you aren't. You're just doing some mostly harmless recreation on VideoSift.
I say if the grades of these children aren't suffering and if they manage to hand in their homework on time, there should be no reason to monitor their computer activity.
At high school I almost never did any schoolwork and also used the computers for unrelated stuff. However I finished high school with good grades, and I'm currently finishing my university master's degree. I can't imagine the hell high school would have been if I was constantly monitored to be actively doing schoolwork.


One of my employers DID use this method. It's how they made sure we weren't using unnecessary bandwidth, or slacking off while on a phone call. It's a good QA method.

That being said, you =/= everybody. Just because you slacked off and managed to get good grades doesn't mean everybody does. There are people out there that unless they focus on what they're doing will be sidetracked constantly, and any form of temptation will cause that. I used to be one of those people, the minute I started doing something else my work suffered and I got terrible marks, the only thing that salvaged them sometimes was from me getting Hoffed, forcing me to re-focus on my work.

I don't understand why people are so upset about this method when it's at school. You're GIVEN a laptop, and the only expectation is that when you're at school, you do schoolwork on it. The only difference between this and a teacher walking around behind you looking at what you're doing, is you can't hide anything with this method, they see exactly what you're doing.

Watching videos like this, I always expect to hear Sigur Ros playing... and I love Peter Gabriel (The Last Temptation soundtrack is awesome) but, I thought the track chosen was a little too "dark" for this kind of scenery... imo

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

To me, every vampire fiction universe has some flaws that keep it from being ideal to my tastes, although I do enjoy at least parts of all of them. For example:

Buffy - I don't like the idea that vampires (with a few exceptions) are inherently evil because they don't have a soul. That cheapens them and turns them into guilt-free cannon fodder. Vampires should be generally evil because they have power, and have had time to be corrupted by losing their (potentially limited) human reluctance to abusing power.

Anne Rice - Look, the occasional person is actually firmly heterosexual, and no amount of time spent being undead would chip away at their inhibitions to reveal a raging omnisexual being within. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In addition, while the series starts out well with old vampires that know nothing of any god and have 'never learned any secret that would save or damn their soul', the later books are shroud of turin, god and devil obsessed dreck.

Blade (based on movies not comics) - Blade's origin doesn't seem so unique that he would be the only 'daywalker'. I also don't really like silver as a weakness for vamps -- one silver bullet grazes an arm and they are dusted? Also, 'born' vampires and vampires that can age annoy me.

Twilight - The whole weakness to sunlight thing comes down to vampires being sparkly in the sun? ...Right. In addition, Edward requires massive fortitude to resist the temptation of eating Bella if she draws blood from a tiny scratch, but there is no mention made of him having to avoid her for ... ahem ... several days a month.

Vampire the Masquerade (based on PC games) - Although I am an atheist and personally dislike Rice's later books due to overly strident religious references, the treatment of Cain of Cain/Abel as the original vampire, and his 13 fledgling vampires as the founders of 13 'clans' with different traits in VTM is quite cool. A negative is that I can't actually imagine that the masquerade-enforcing Camarilla would be able to completely keep vampires off of the human radar with anarchy loving Sabaat around. Plus stake to the heart = paralysis makes no sense.

But since we're talking fiction, there is some suspension of disbelief required anyway, so all of these flaws don't necessarily ruin the final product for me.

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic (sort of) ramblings.

I don't know what to say about your first post Krupo except maybe "pick up a history book and start reading".

Firstly, your comment that, "accusing Catholics anti-Semitic is beyond ridiculous" is among the least intelligent responses I have seen on VideoSift.

Archbishop Robert Runcie asserts that: "Without centuries of Christian antisemitism, Hitlers passionate hatred would never have been so fervently echoed...because for centuries Christians have held Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. On Good Friday Jews, have in times past, cowered behind locked doors with fear of a Christian mob seeking 'revenge' for deicide. Without the poisoning of Christian minds through the centuries, the holocaust is unthinkable." Christian antisemitism is well documented. In fact, the main purpose of the Inquisitions (particularly the Spanish Inquisition) was to forcefully convert or kill Jews.

Then you ask, "And what's this about "torturing" Galileo?" Galileo was put on trial and threatened with torture and death by the inquisition for asserting that the Earth went around the Sun. His partner was burned at the stake for the same assertion. He was shown the implements of torture that would be used on him if he did not recant. So he did. And he spent the rest of his life under house-arrest. The Church tortured and killed to stop the furthering of scientific knowledge.

With regards to Fry, as a homosexual he is considered sinful. His homosexual temptation is considered "disordered", thus not sinful, but his acting on those temptations are considered sinful. This makes him, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, in a state of mortal sin (in direct contradiction to what you said).

Those against Catholicism in this debate won it easily. They didn't use lies or falsehoods, just showed how reprehensible the Catholic Church really is.

Just thought I'd encourage the temptation...

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I'm highly tempted to vote this up. That's saying a lot, coming from me.

Capo 3rd

Intro: 
C //// C //// C //// G ////  F5  ////  C ////  G //// Am&nbs
p; //// G ////  F5 //// C //// G

C               G    F5     &n
bsp;        C            G    
 
please remember me, happily  by the rosebush laughing 
         C          G     &nbs
p;       F5                 C&
nbsp;                
with bruises on my chin, the time when, we counted every black car 
G
passing 
       Am               G  &nb
sp;        F5              C  
               G
your house beneath the hill, and up until, someone caught us in the kitchen
      Am                G  &nb
sp;          F5              &
nbsp;   C
With maps, a mountain range, a piggy bank, a vision too removed to 
     G
mention
         C           G    &nbs
p; F5                   C    &
nbsp;                    
But please remember me, fondly, I heard from someone you’re still 
   G
pretty
         C                
;G                    F5    
And then, they went on to say That the pearly gates, has some 
    C       G
eloquent graffiti
      Am             G     &nb
sp;          F5              &
nbsp;C 
Like, we’ll, meet again, and fuck the man And tell my mother not to 
G
worry
   Am           G         F5 &
nbsp;               C         
         G
And angels with a great, handshake And all is done in such a hurry
      C              G    &nbs
p;   F5             C     
And please remember me, at Halloween, Making fools of all the 
G
neighbors 
           C      G       &nbs
p;     F5         C          &
nbsp;  G     
Are faces painted white, by midnight, We forgotten one another
        Am            G    &nb
sp;       F5                 C
         G
And when The morning came, I was ashamed Only now it seems so silly, 

           Am          G   &nb
sp;         F5               &
nbsp;   C              G
That season Left the world and then returned And now your lit up by the Cit
y
        C            G    &nbs
p;    F5              C      &
nbsp;        G     
So, Please, remember me, Mistakenly In the window of the tallest 
        C                 
; G               F5        &n
bsp;             C       
tower  call, Then pass us by, But much too high, To see the empty road 
;at 
       G  
Happy hour
   Am         G            &nb
sp;          F5              C
        G
Leave, and resonate, Just like the gates, Around the holy kingdom
       Am                 &nbs
p;  G                    F5  &
nbsp;      
With words like 'Lost and Found' and 'Don't Look Down' And 
  C                  G
'Someone Save Temptation'
       C              G   &nbs
p;         F5              C &
nbsp;                    
And Please, remember me As in the dream, We had as rug-burned 
G
babies
C                   G     &nbs
p;        F5              C  &
nbsp;           G     
Among  the fallen trees And fast asleep Aside the lions and the ladies
         Am               &nbs
p;  G             F5         &
nbsp;    C               

That called, you what you like, And even might, Give a gift for your 
    G
behavior
           Am            G &nb
sp;          F5           C   
    G
A fleeting chance to see, A trapeze Swing as high as any savior

       C              G   &nbs
p;  F5                    C  &
nbsp;          G     
But Please, remember me, My misery, And how it lost me all I wanted 
         C                
;   G               F5      &n
bsp;            
Those dogs, that love the rain, And chasing trains
      C                   
;       G     
The colored birds above there running 
        Am           G     &nb
sp;            F5            &
nbsp;  
In circles round the well, And where it spells 
      C                  G&nbs
p;        Am        
On the wall behind St. Peter's So bright with 
             G            
;   F5               C      &n
bsp;      G            
With cinder gray, And spray paint 'Who the hell can see forever?' 
       C             G    &nbs
p;F5               C         &
nbsp;    G     
And Please, remember me, Seldomly, In the car behind the carnival 
     C                 G  &nbs
p;               F5         &n
bsp;           
My hand between your  knees, You turn from me 
                C         
;        G     
And said 'The trapeze act was wonderful 
        Am          G      &nb
sp;               F5         &
nbsp;     
But never meant to last', The clown that passed,  
         C               G&nbs
p;           
Saw me just come up with anger 
         Am               &nbs
p;  G                 F5     &
nbsp;       C       G     
When it filled, with circus dogs, The parking lot, Had an element of danger 
      C             G     &nbs
p;F5             C           &
nbsp;G     
So Please, remember me, Finally, And all my uphill clawing
      C           G       &nbs
p;       F5                 &n
bsp;   
My dear But if I make The pearly Gates
        C        G        &nbs
p;      Am         G         &
nbsp;           
 Do my best to make a drawing Of God, and Lucifer
           F5             C&nb
sp;           G            
A boy and girl An angel kissing on a sinner, 
       Am      G           &nb
sp;    F5                    &
nbsp;C       G            
A monkey and a man A marching band All around the frightened trapeze swingers 
 C          G       F5      &n
bsp;C      G      C
Na-na Na-na-na Na-na Na-na...

 C   G   F5  C   G   C
Am  G   F5   C   G   C

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Iron_&_Wine:The_Trapeze_Swinger

Please remember me happily
By the rosebush laughing
With bruises on my chin
The time when we counted every black car passing

Your house beneath the hill and up until
Someone caught us in the kitchen
With maps, a mountain range, a piggy bank
A vision too removed to mention

But please remember me fondly
I heard from someone you're still pretty
And then they went on to say that the pearly gates
Had some eloquent graffiti

Like 'We'll meet again' and 'Fuck the man'
And 'Tell my mother not to worry'
And angels with their gray handshakes
Were always done in such a hurry

And please remember me at Halloween
Making fools of all the neighbors
Our faces painted white by midnight
We'd forgotten one another

And when the morning came, I was ashamed
Only now it seems so silly
That season left the world and then returned
But now you're lit up by the city

So please remember me mistakenly
In the window of the tallest tower call
Then pass us by but much too high
To see the empty road at happy hour

Gleam and resonate just like the gates
Around the holy kingdom
With words like 'Lost and Found' and 'Don't Look Down'
And 'Someone Save Temptation'

And please remember me as in the dream
We had as rug-burned babies
Among the fallen trees and fast asleep
Aside the lions and the ladies

That called you what you like and even might
Give a gift for your behavior
A fleeting chance to see a trapeze
Swinger high as any savior

But please remember me, my misery
And how it lost me all I wanted
Those dogs that love the rain and chasing trains
The colored birds above their running

In circles 'round the well and where it spells
On the wall behind St. Peter's
So bright on cinder gray and spray paint
'Who the hell can see forever?'

And please remember me seldomly
In the car behind the carnival
My hand between your knees, you turn from me
And said the trapeze act was wonderful

But never meant to last, the clowns that passed
Saw me just come up with anger
When it filled with circus dogs, the parking lot
Had an element of danger

So please remember me, finally
And all my uphill clawing, my dear
But if I make the pearly gates
Do my best to make a drawing

Of God and Lucifer, a boy and girl
An angel kissing on a sinner
A monkey and a man, a marching band
All around the frightened trapeze swingers