The interview seemed quite lame to me, and in some ways the host tried to create a controversy where there is none.

In the case of Amnesty International I don't see a global vs. local problem. They are fundementally committed to the idea of each of us being a "Citizen of the World".

In the US and Canada they spotlight racial profiling, the misuse of Tasers by police and other police abuses. They fight for abolition of the Death penalty where it is still practiced.

In Angola, for example, they spotlight the abuses of police power and problems with freedom of the press. In Portugal they highlight violence and mistreatment in prisons. In Eritrea basic Human Rights violations are a huge concern as is the imprisonment of journalists.

There are literally hundreds issues and most are not limited to one country or another, they just vary by degree or have a specific manifestation in one country or another.

Fair points Carlitas.

It views like an imitation of cable politics talk shows -- O'Reilly, Hardball -- in which the host tries to create controversy. Is it just the medium, or could Adventists come up with a more informative approach to using media for information sharing and entertainment. Instead of teaching the controversy, perhaps we should talk about the moral values and Adventist principles that allow anyone to make up their own minds.

Having recently graduated from an Adventist college I recall a similar academy ethics debate approach to campus activism.

After a boring forum on war and peace, we were each given ribbons -- white for peace, green for war -- and then told to drape whichever position we agreed with on the trees and bushes around campus.

Where's our Adventist campus Daily Show?

Alexander - It's up to you to create one! It's definitely needed.

First,let me just say that it is good to know that at least three people watched the show. Normally, I never really know who takes the time to view it and (in your case) respond. So thank you for doing both.

As host of the show it is my duty to create a debate atmosphere, which is quite challenging. If you have tried to get more than one student (undergraduate or high school) to talk about ethics or politics you know you are slowly and sometimes painfully dragging out their opinions. What we want to do with the show is to have students talk about issues, and since students do not talk about these things easily, an opposing viewpoint must be taken up.

Carlitas made some excellent points about AI's efforts in the world, but I disagree about creating "controversy where there is none." Krista and Tim made it abundantly clear that although AI works to eradicate abuses to human rights in other countries, it is also not a two-faced organization that does not hold America to higher moral standards. In addition, they both acknowledged that other groups help to fight poverty and other social problems, which is not the aim of Amnesty International. These statements would not have been stated had I not argued an alternative view, i.e. US poverty and social reform.

Here's a thought: Adventists cannot have a Daily Show. The Daily Show steps out of the bounds of normal journalism to help us to laugh at ourselves, mock society, and poignantly reflect on America through satire and comedic hyperbole. Adventists are too afraid to laugh at ourselves and at the Adventist culture. When we can do that, especially without ridicule or scorn... well, then we can have an Adventist Daily Show. (Anonymous is right: "It's definitely needed.")

Oh, and Mr. Carpenter, how could one tell the green ribbons from the trees and bushes?