Big ups to this game, one of the first I played heavily during my Great Resurgence of Interest in Gaming in late 2000. This took place when I ordered a new PC custom-built with $700 Radeon board (the very first 64MB Radeon when it was just called Radeon because there was only one.) late in 2000. The only game that I remember this well from 2000 is Deus Ex but I would say on the whole Alice is definitely my favourite game from that year.

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.

I completely disagree, westy. How can this sport be equated to rolling dice?

Yes, training is very much a part of it. What sport isn't? In fact I'd say training factors a lot more in to it than breeding. How many great horses sire other horses with great expectations that simply fizzle out? Plenty.

And how many horses come out of nowhere to give us wonderful stories - frequently.

Besides the point, when you get to these big races like the Triple Crown races and the Breeder's Cup, ALL the horses have strong lineage. So it really comes down to training and, to some extent, the cunning of the jockey.

This is a beautiful sport that, frankly, has eaten itself alive over the past couple decades. They haven't marketed themselves well to the public like other sports (see: NASCAR) over the years. And that's a shame. But I see a huge resurgance in popularity. Unfortunately, the sport won't see a big resurgance until there's a Triple Crown winner. And who knows when that'll be.

I read a diary at DailyKos that made an interesting observation about the Nobel Prize. The overall tilt of the piece is pretty partisan, but I do think they've got the right lens for sorting out the answer to whether the question of whether Obama deserves the Nobel Prize. The core argument goes like this:

The distinction between earnings and gifts is a key element in this moral analysis. Earnings implies an exchange of goods and/or services where, in theory, the exchange is deemed equitable by mutual consent. While the reality doesn't always match the theory - one party may not receive an equitable share because their bargaining power is very different - the underlying concept of an exchange of goods and/or services remains. Each party should get what he/she deserves.

Gifts are quite different. A gift does not imply an equitable exchange of goods and/or services. Quite the contrary, its status as a gift means that one party has freely chosen to bestow it with no expectation of any equitable return, except perhaps for gratitude. The necessary elements are that the giver is willing to offer it, and that the recipient accept it. It may be offered in the hope that the recipient will put it to good use, but ultimately that good use is for the recipient to determine. A gift with strings attached is not really a gift at all.

..snip..

Had President Obama sought the prize based on explicit or implicit promises - campaigning for it as he did the presidency - it would make sense for progressives to consider Fairness/Reciprocity. Then it would be earnings. But he didn't seek or campaign for the prize. It was a gift,

This makes a lot of sense to me, and actually fits with my initial emotional reaction to the news -- pleased surprise. The question "why?" was the next thought I had about it, but figured they undoubtedly would explain the decision.

In reading more, I think Rachel essentially has it right on their reasoning, coming as it is from an international/European viewpoint.

Bush had effectively turned the United States into the most dangerous rogue nation the world had ever seen, and Obama has entirely reversed that course. There's no more nascent resurgence of a Cold War with Russia. There's no more open disdain for the European powers. There's no more disregard for the UN. There is no more flagrant mockery of environmental issues. America has returned to being a citizen of the world.

There are still two active wars the US is engaged in, but one is being drawn to a close, and the other is under review, with a goal of establishing an exit strategy.

I do think it's more aimed at encouraging Obama to "stay the course", than a recognition of any tangible goal achieved, and it seems clear to me that Obama recognizes it as such.

Sounds like a good idea to give Obama a strong push to follow through on his promises. Again, I hope it works.

Embarrassed by history.

Here is a link to the full text and English translation of "The Road to Resurgence" written by Hitler, at the request of wealthy far right industrialist Emil Kirdorf.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1878145

It costs. (I had a print copy stashed away somewhere. Can't seem to find it, sry.)

------


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkirdorf.htm

Kirdorf, who held extreme right-wing political views, first heard Adolf Hitler speak in 1927. He was so impressed that he arranged to meet Hitler at the home of Elsa Buckmann in Munich. Although Kirdorf supported most of Hitler's beliefs he was concerned about some of the policies of the Nazi Party. He was particularly worried about the views of some people in the party such as Gregor Strasser who talked about the need to redistribute wealth in Germany.

Adolf Hitler tried to reassure Kirdorf that these policies were just an attempt to gain the support of the working-class in Germany and would not be implemented once he gained power. Kirdorf suggested that Hitler should write a pamphlet for private distribution amongst Germany's leading industrialists that clearly expressed his views on economic policy.

Hitler agreed and The Road to Resurgence was published in the summer of 1927. In the pamphlet distributed by Kirdorf to Germany's leading industrialists, Hitler tried to reassure his readers that he was a supporter of private enterprise and was opposed to any real transformation of Germany's economic and social structure.

Kirdorf was particularly attracted to Hitler's idea of winning the working class away from left-wing political parties such as the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. Kirdorf and other business leaders were also impressed with the news that Hitler planned to suppress the trade union movement once he gained power. Kirdorf joined the Nazi Party and immediately began to try and persuade other leading industrialists to supply Hitler with the necessary funds to win control of the Reichstag.

------



------

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.

Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers.

...

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

-------

Most textbooks today already ARE whitewashed versions of actual history. Historical figures are presented and mythical hero's who either surpassed incredible odds at great peril, or were practical saints. Here's just a couple bits you will almost certainly never learn in a high school classroom.

a) Helen Keller - Blind and Deaf, everyone has probably seen the scene where she learns finally how to sign under the water from a pump. What you don't know was that after graduating from college she joined the Socialist Party and hailed the coming of Socialism. (She had good reasons for this, look her up if your interested)

b) Woodrow Wilson - Despite receiving a large black vote into office, the man created many policies that were as he was in fact, extremely racist. This cause at least in part, the large resurgence of white supremacist racism during the late part of his term and afterwards.

I could go on about the atrocities that Columbus committed as well. The plain fact is that US History as taught in high school today centers EVERYTHING on Europe having "accomplished" everything first. And this crazy overprotective moron wants to whitewash it even further.

Imstellar,

As always you misinterpret data to fit your perceptions.

Real GDP growth has doubled from 1970 to 1990 check BEA, national debt has only increased larger then a fraction of total GDP from 1980 to 1990, with massive debt growth from 1990 to 2000. These levels however are still below levels of World War 2.

Your example really however applies when it comes to the recent so called growth from 1997 to 2007, as real wage increases were nonexistent, so was real stock market growth on the S&P 500. So instead of the economy expanding the US economy has been fueling growth with borrowing. At the same time credit card debt started overtake real wages, with massive increases from 2003Q1.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/02/the_failure_of_1.html

Your idea that private enterprise can solve these issues is again wrong, given that the Progressive movement brought government intervention to sustain fair markets and competition which lead to break ups of monopolies. Bringing forth agencies like the FDA, FTC and the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Federal Reserve was created to control tariffs and antitrust cases. All these agencies came about in the 1900s and were responses to citizen requests after laissez-faire economics in the 1800s, they also paved the way for the roaring 20s. Before you start complaining about the the government extending the great depression a recent study showed that only 20% of professional economists hold that view, and even then they claim that they Fed should have been the one to instigate change by reducing interest rates and allow credit back in the economy but this is in hindsight with development of Monetary policy in the 50s and 60s.

Furthermore, I never advocated for socialism in the US because it is not going to happen, what I said was socialistic policies, the capitalistic component is not being removed from the US unlike what you seem to believe. Its called a Mixed economy for a reason. There is no pure capitalistic or socialistic economy in the world bar Cuba and some failed states, the closest capitalistic state in the world is actually Singapore.

You keep saying '2%' unemployment.

The unemployment problem is far more severe, but you are underestimating its very nature, the stimulus package was created to save or create 3.5 million jobs, the unemployment figures currently place it at 4.4 million (half of this in the last 4 months) since the start of the recession.

With levels spiking to 8.1 as I mentioned earlier in single month, the highest level since 1983. This strikes at consumer confidence, and further reduces consumption and aggregate demand, not to mention that it means that more foreclosures are coming. Consumption is already taking a hit as confidence plummets and expenditure is being relegated to essentials (however I think the electronics sector will still thrive, especially the video games market, it has been shown to be fairly recession proof unless EA goes crazy and starts to buy up other companies).

Not only are layoffs large but there is increasing firms that are simply coming out of entire market sectors. The Labor department has stated that Unemployment benefits will not recover lost jobs but more must be spent on actual job retraining to realign the US economy with trend factors over the last 10 years, 4.5 billion is in the stimulus package for job retraining. That is still too low as in current dollars $20 billion a year went to job training in 1979, compared with only $6 billion last year.

This recession will fundamentally rebuild the economy, even with unemployment benefits and a sudden resurgence in consumer confidence there is not enough credit available to allow a short term return to employment. Which again necessitates the large fiscal policies we are seeing enacted.

Education will also play a vital role in this, am an advocate of centralized educational standards. I disagree with educational avenues in the US, which usually require graduates to graduate with massive debt which they repay for several years afterward. Not to mention that systems like the SAT and No Child Left behind have only created a system where children learn more about test taking then actual acquisition of knowledge. But this is another debate entirely which I don't really feel like expanding on right now.

Finally. Again to reiterate what I said about the 'let them fail' ideas with regards to the banking system. The Treasury still has not made up its mind how it will cover the toxic debt, the Fed let Lehman Brothers fail and see what happened, the entire finical sector melted down and dragged several other big firms with it. There is talk of letting Citigroup fail, that is a huge bank, and the actual cross exposure is not clearly relevant if its allowed to fail. It could drag the rest of the financial sector with it. However there is clear rallying right now as Citigroup posted a profit, with markets perking up.

>> ^Psychologic:
Dawkins is "preaching" to the convertable... people who will listen but who may not have been exposed to the right information. He knows that there are people who will never change their mind, but there are plenty of others who really are looking for answers.
I'm glad that Dawkins exists. Perhaps more people will invest in reason rather than custom in the future. It will be a gradual change, but it will only happen because more and more people like Dawkins exist in the public domain.

I really believe that resurgence of atheism is actually part of the response to the rise of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity in Northern America. This is where the issue is more prevalent and most debated in our time. In Europe the transition from religious belief to atheism has been fairly organic with the release of more information and public discourse over many years.

However Atheism doesn't really encompass a spiritual side to it which is a necessity to many, in this regard I believe it will lead to new age beliefs becoming more normalized in society, we will proclaim ourselves atheist against man made religions while creating newer interpretation of why we are here and what our purpose is. Since Atheism like science is a fairly cold and inhumane system of belief. There is wonder in mathematics but there is no love in it.

Likewise it is totally predictable that the current economic crisis and the failure of the free market system could lead to a different kinds of resurgence in religious belief. Since the rise of religion in the early to late 90s was part of the decadent high times of the 70s and 80s. Studies show that in times of great difficulty alot of people turn to God for solace.

I know a lot of people might not read down this far, but I am in full support of the ad campaign. I believe it is very important to to start being more public about the option to not believe. There are a lot of people in this country and others who are completely surrounded by groupthinking drones, and if we want to pull out of this dark age resurgence of faith pushers, we need to let people who feel trapped know that there are alternatives. There are a lot of us who lead good lives without believing in myths and giving significant portions of our incomes to people who just feed the mythology back to you.

>> ^MINK:
downvote because the title is so retarded.


Agreed on the title; deserves a palmface.

Of course parkour is not new. This is like wagging your finger at Pink Floyd and saying, "Hey, guys, didn't you know rock n' roll is not new." Or patronizing Judo practitioners because it was invented years after other martial arts. It's a modern resurgence of past and present body movement. Stop hatin'.

I'm trying to figure out your troll angle here.

Does a troll-angle have three sides? My right to comment is as valid as yours.

Are you saying that having faith in general is sacrosanct? I always took you for a conservative Christian, not a panentheist.

I am not a Christian; I believe Christianity is a legitimate pathway to God-Consciousness, as are many others.

I find it hypocritical to accuse only religion of influencing science while ignoring the politics that gave us junk science resulting in imaginary polar bear genocide, man-made global warming, and tobacco smoke that would have already killed most of the human race by now were it as lethal as claimed. What fueled the ban of DDT? Politically motivated junk science. Well, that self-righteous attitude and Rachel Carson's lies are now responsible for needless deaths in the millions from the resurgence of malaria. How often blind faith and modern junk science share the same toothbrush.

Atheism will never catch fire because humans are not logical, or robots.
Humans are creatures of imagination and emotion, and listening to Dawkins talk about DNA, while interesting, will never replace religious storytelling. I understand the beef with fundamentalists, but they are small in number in most religions.

Fraudbama is a perfect example of how the power of myth trumps logic. He's gotten this far appealing only to imagination (a bright future) and emotion (hope) with only vague hints and promises of what he'll do.

As a former atheist, I'm not asking anyone to convert. I'm (occasionally) requesting atheists to consider the utilitarian usefulness of faith, and lose the bigotry long enough to grudgingly admit religion's done more good than harm.

Jesus doesn't like terrorists!

Welcome to the resurgence of McCarthyism. Welcome to the land of the paranoid and xenophobic.

>> ^bcglorf:

First off, I think Bush and Cheney should both be impeached and thrown in jail for allowing torture and the idea of Geneva-less non-combatants.

I'm with you there.

That said, comparing an invasion of Georgia to an invasion of Saddam's regime in Iraq is ludicrous. Georgia never gave government offices to wanted terrorists. Georgia never annexed a soverign nation. Georgia never used chemical weapons against it's neighbors and own people. Georgia never committed genocide. Saddam did all of these and a great deal more.

And this is where you lost me. I am comparing the motivation of the political leaders who invaded these nations, and I see a similarity between political agendas being served. First of all, the annexing you speak of was in 1990, and H.W. Bush answered that one. Dubya's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with genocide or chemical weapons or annexing nations; it had everything to do with American hegemony and protecting the dollar when Saddam decided to switch from the petrodollar to the petroeuro. Any other reason given for the invasion and occupation was bullshit propaganda.

First off, Bush Jr. wasn't in power when 100's of thousands of lives were at stake in Rwanda and Sudan. I think it's unfair to blame prior presidential inaction on the current president(even one that aught be impeached). More importantly, the left wing argument about non-intervention in Sudan or Rwanda is insane. The question is SHOULD the world have intervened in Sudan and Rwanda, and the answer is a deafening YES!

I'm not just talking about the crises in Sudan and Rwanda. Africa is marred by violence and famine, and dictators run most of it with an iron fist, thus causing millions of deaths across the continent. If we are so gung-ho about stopping genocide, why not start there instead of in the Middle East? We chose the Middle East, and it's because we're afraid OPEC will switch to the petroeuro and destroy the dollar. And we cover this in the guise of stopping terrorists. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still missing, and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. PROPAGANDA takes the place of information, yet again.

If non-intervention in Iraq would have led to a coup and a civil war that in any way resembled Sudan or Rwanda then inspite of Bush and Cheney's actions that appall me, the act of preventing that would redeem them. That said, I don't think anyone can really see what an internal Iraqi civil war would've looked like. Though, it would be fair to say it would have been ugly, at least as ugly as the current situation in Iraq.

You don't know what a civil war in Iraq looks like? Have you not heard the body count of civilians caught in the crossfire of the Sunni-Shi'ite battles?

"All in all not ideal conditions for any presidency."

If he had answered the terrorist attacks the correct way, by going full force against bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think he could have avoided most of those less-than-ideal conditions. He would have told the world that we were against the individuals who attacked us, and not starting a War on Terror in general. The world knows we can't stop everybody we hate all at once. And history shows the catastrophy that a two-front war yields.

If we had not invaded Iraq on the premise of a War on Terror, we would not have created more instability in the region and in the world, so the global market would not have seized the way it did. Higher gas prices are a direct result of our invasion and occupation, and in our attitude toward people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If we had not invaded and occupied Iraq, and decided to speak to people we dislike, maybe we'd have bin Laden in the Hague right now. Or in a coffin. And the Taliban would not be resurgent in Afghanistan. Everybody says they want the troops to come home, but that won't happen, even if they leave Iraq. If they're shipped out of Iraq, it will only be to send them back to the place they should have been all along--Afghanistan.

So I understand Bush has had some trials occur during his Presidency, but most of them have occurred because he shot himself in the foot.

The description to this video is just FUD. He has never supported preemptive wars. He voted against the Iraq war and said the troops should have stayed in Afghanistan to finish off Bin Laden and the Taliban. Unlike Iraq, Most of Afghanistan WANTS more troops to help fight a resurgent Taliban (and thereby defend their basic freedoms from those fundamentalist nutjobs who would have women accused of adultery beheaded) Once we've fucked up a country with war we have an obligation to help rebuild it, if that's what you mean by "nation building".

"United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank"
Aside from the World Bank's usury, why show such contempt for international cooperation? One world government is not necessarily a bad thing.

"From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone."
Iran actually DOES have centrifuges for enriching fuel for power plants, and such equipment could easily be reallocated to weapons production if Iran wanted to do so. Nothing about that statement is inaccurate, only your FUD interpretation of it is inaccurate. Obama has never supported attacking Iran. Apparently you think acknowledging the existence of a threat we might face is equivalent to advocating war. Irishman makes the same mistake. Obama is not warmongering, he is trying to build international cooperation. Counterterrorism does not require starting any new wars. He has said we will GTFO of Iraq by 2010 and just finish the job in Afghanistan.

"join overwhelming military force with sound judgment"
That's not saying we should start any new wars. The only war he's advocating is finishing the job in Afghanistan.