Did the representatives wave their hands as they made that statement?

Ok, this is a nice plan and all, but there is one little problem: how do you keep the sharks alive in a vacuum?

Interpol doesn't choose what crimes to get involved in. If a state makes a request to Interpol for a red notice then Interpol sends it out. It's not like the movie Hitman with a squad of armed agents roaming all over a country looking for 1 person; they simply facilitate requests and notices between agencies of different states.

Sure. I played football from elementary school all the way through college. My wife knows nothing about the sport but I want her to watch it with me. I don't start talking about different offensive formations like pistol, shotgun, spread, or when to use a 4-3 instead of a 3-4 defense. I start with basics, give her a rough idea of who everyone is and what they do so she can follow along while I can pay more attention to the "tactics" of the game. I fail to see how this is a bad thing (or "massaging my ego"-nice ad hominen by the way), and is precisely how you go about bringing in people that are completely unfamiliar with a topic. If you tailor a tv show about science to the people with a Master's degree or higher level of understanding then you miss out on a lot of people.

They aren't. This is an idiot trying to make a joke after the report from the FAA came out the other day.

These kinds of shows aren't for people who fall asleep every night listening to lectures. These kinds of shows are for the people who think Taylor Swift is the greatest singer/songwriter of all time, or can name everyone in the newest season of Dancing with the Stars but can't name the top people in government. The idea is to get people who aren't normally interested in science to at least think about it, to develop a rudimentary understanding of how science works (scientific theory, how scientists think, etc) and why the world around them is the way it is. Even a simplistic understadning is better than no understanding at all.

Must be a bunch of glory hounds

Sounds like they would have better luck going for corporate tax breaks.

Was the blockade of the South during the Civil War an attempt at Genocide? How about blockading Germany during WWI/WWII? That's not an example of genocide, that's trying to defeat an enemy by targeting their ability to wage war (can't fight without food). As I said, it was more a low intensity guerrilla war than it was a genocide.

The Crusades were an attempt by a European noble class that was declining in wealth and power to find a way for their population to target their frustrations on an outside threat rather than enslavers/rulers and claim more land for themselves. When Christians would sack a town they would usually slaughter all inhabitants-man, woman, child, Christian, Muslim, or Jew (easier to loot from the dead). Muslims usually let Christians and Jews live-they might pressure them to convert or force them to pay a tax, but they still got to live.

I didn't say they didn't kill a lot of people. The definition of a genocide is the systemic and premeditated eradication of a people based upon ethnicity/religion/other intrinsic characteristics. But it is not to just take over their land-that's simply war.

That's a bit of a stretch. The aim of the US western expansion wasn't to kill all traces of Native American peoples and culture, it was to gain control of their land. While there certainly were numerous instances of massacres, they seemed to be more due to individual ignorance, prejudice, or misunderstanding than any systemic attempt to wipe out all Indians. Not even considering all the treaties and reservations set up (the quality-or lack thereof-of the land provided on the reservations can again I think be attributed mostly to apathy or ignorance as opposed to outright malice), the numerous attempts at integrating and Westernizing Native Americans shows a (misguided perhaps) desire to help them and make them become "Americans". In reality, the Western expansion was in effect a protracted, low-intensity guerrilla war, and there are plenty of cases of these types of conflicts to show that they very often lead to instances of overreactions of force, excessive non-combatant casualties, and mass killings.

The Japanese were training school children and the elderly to go down and defend possible landing beaches with spears. The Japanese military tried to stage a coup to depose the Emperor and any in the pro-peace faction before the bombs. The Japanese military elite was willing to watch the whole country burn and every last Japanese citizen killed all so they wouldn't have the shame of having to surrender. They were necessary.

Shouldn't every weapon have a moral conflict inherent in it's use? Whether it is wondering for a fraction of a second if you should pull the trigger of a rifle(am I aiming at a target or a civilian), or deliberating for a week on whether or not to launch a strike on a compound (good intel, collateral damage, etc), there should always be a period of reflection and wondering if the weapon needs to be employed. The act of taking a life is not a decision to be taken lightly, and if when killing becomes second nature or even enjoyable you run the risk of having a very severe problem.

Glad they didnt do stuff like this 15 years ago. I remember back in high school using Word to access the locked out C: drive of computers and me and my friends would save SNES emulators there and play SNES games during class. We were in a Magnet program so they probably wouldn't have done much to us if caught, but if we had done that now and gotten caught we would all probably have been arrested.