What? How could anyone seriously propose Obama stop NATO help for Ukraine linked to removing Assad from Syria? What good would that do to anyone but Putin?

Obama does not decide what NATO does and where.

Ukraine will fall to Putin without west European help.

Syria is a tribal and religious mess where no one has anything to gain right now, Assad is hated but legitimate. Rebels are split into factions with unclear objectives. Who exactly would the USA support in Syria if Assad was somehow "removed" by the Russians?

No one wants to fight the IS; Syria wants to fight rebels, Turkey wants to fight Kurds, Iran wants to fight Iraq, everyone wants to fight Israel. OK Kurds want to fight the IS but Kurds dont get much love on this planet. Even Kurds and Assad and Russian air support are unlikely to be enough to fight the IS.

Russia "good cop" in Ukraine... excuse me? You lost me there...

PS: Obama may just have to rethink his position on Assad, everything else is just a standoff hoping to force Putin to respect international treaties that he has agreed to. Which is unlikely. The only possible way out is for Putin to succumb to internal Russian problems over time.

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Indecency is as much a ludicrous taboo as mountain-blasphemy.

Disobeying the demands of a bunch of superstitious tribals isn't ignorance; it's moral, cultural and frankly genetic superiority.

I personally expect the trend away from religiosity in America to accelerate. In more urban areas where people are exposed to more diversity, they tend to leave behind the tribal myths of their elders. The Internet is bringing some of that diversity to the masses.

The "integration" of foreign cultures into Danish society should not be blamed for the current political or economic state of the country. Particularly when it is the very xenophobia (to put it generously) expressed in that sentiment which is more likely at the root of those difficulties. The historical success of the economic model in Denmark was not dependant upon the monoethnic values that existed in the country before the current influx of immigrants. Although it's fair to say that the collectivism inherent in the tribal attitude of Nordic countries was key in smoothly implementing and maintaining successful socialism in the region, it is not fair to blame new immigrants if it falters. Perhaps true integration would have been beneficial to the system, rather than segregation and blame.

Puting all that aside, the US would never, could never, implement Nordic socialism. It is true that we are a different culture with a very different set of goals and challeneges. If socialistic policies were implemented it would be a distinctly American Socialism. In speaking of political or economic systems we often err by contextualizing them in absolute terms. As if "socialism" means only one thing. But the fact is that the democracy we practice in the US shares little with the democracy practiced by the ancient Romans. When speaking of socialism, we need to put it in context. Is it post WW2 Swedish socialism? Modern Sri Lankan socialism? These are necessarily different things. Similarly, it is possible to implement modern US Socialism as a system that is uniquely reflective of our culture. In theory anyway. In reality, the challenge of employing socialism in, arguably, the most individualistic culture in the world, may be insurmountable.

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

If you watched the entire Morgan Freeman-Through the wormhole episode, you would have seen that simply spending 1 on 1 time with those of other races/tribes can erase much of the subconscious racism and make them seem like one of 'your' tribe. He did not say we MUST be racist/bigoted (he did say that we ARE whether we know it or not) or that it's still a survival mechanism, it has not been since we lived in isolated tribal groups.
Removing that obstacle to civilized behavior does NOTHING to stop, or hinder evolution, it might even accelerate it (by fostering better gene mixing)...the medical system takes care of hindering evolution for humans quite well by removing 'survival of the fittest' from the equation.

Stevia is too new to make any real determinations on. Currently, there is a lot of uncertainty. Just because something comes from a plant doesn't make it safer. Almonds used to be loaded with cyanide before we eliminated the trees that had those kinds of almonds. There have been recent studies questioning the safety of stevia, and this will likely be dealt with over the next decade. Unfortunately, certain countries have gotten around the necessary procedures for sufficient scientific inquiry because they are marketing it not as a food additive or sweetener but as a dietary supplement, which makes it easier to avoid such scrutiny. Unlike xylitol, which is perfectly fine for human consumption and has been shown to inhibit growth of oral bacteria that leads to caries and plaque, stevia is simply an unknown at this point.

However, stevia has also been around for a while. It has been a product since the 90s and has been banned and un-banned in numerous countries. European reports have shown that it is safe, but it is also still banned in many countries there.

For those of you think that it is "natural" and thus safer, I urge you to look up the naturalistic fallacy on wikipedia before going any further here. It has also been used as a sweetener by certain tribal peoples for centuries, so that means absolutely nothing as far as science goes, but it will still sway many people over, just like traditional herbal Chinese medicines like tiger penis powder and rhinoceros horn powder.

However, it is not a "natural" substance whatsoever, even though that word means nothing in nutrition anyways. Basically they take a small amount of Rebaudioside A from the stevia plant and use a bunch of alcohols and other chemicals to extract out the active sweetening ingredient and then crystallize it. This is then renamed steviol. It is significantly less sweet than most of the other sweeteners, except maybe saccarin, at only about 150x the sweetness of sugar.

Basically, Stevia is probably not bad for you, although the verdict is definitely not in on this one. It is no more "natural" than any of the other sweeteners. You need more of it to reach the same level of sweetness as your other sweeteners so dosage could be an issue. But you have to understand that each of the companies that makes these sweeteners has to find a way to sell their product. So, what do they do? They claim that their sweetener is "natural" and "safe" which implies that all of the other sweeteners that came before it aren't, and as evidence by my previous tirades, this is simply not the case. But they profit from our unwillingness to look at the data for ourselves and play on our natural tendencies to trust them.

In short, we are not certain about stevia yet, but we are certain that sugar is bad and aspartame is fine. However, you probably shouldn't eat any processed food, but we already know that in our bones. We all know that cooking up a delicious meal from simple ingredients is the best way to eat healthy but we don't do it because we are lazy. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. We can only dream of a future similar to "The Invention of Lying" where marketers aren't allowed to lie to us and can simply say that their food is bad for you but you drink it because it tastes good and because you have been for years. A world where they can't market to our children so we don't all grow up addicted to halloween candy or cereals that are more sugar than grains. The best way to do this is to cut your cable from the television and live on the internet with AdBlock installed. Then those fuckers can't get at you as easily.

I think you missed the whole point of the video. When you say "Muslims" are you referring to people who live in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Canada? Because you're going to find wildly different rates of violence (towards women or otherwise) based on where those people are practicing their religion. In fact I'd wager you'd find more Christians and atheists beating their wives in a country like Canada than you would Muslims--probably for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (alcohol or substance abuse, history of being abused themselves, etc.).

Why do "Muslim countries" seem more violent or more violent towards women? Maybe because of the fact that the ones that are most talked about in the news have majority populations that live literally like it was 500 years ago? Or maybe because the ones that pop up in the news frequently (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) are controlled by autocratic regimes that rule with an iron fist and are far more concerned with keeping power than promoting democracy and human rights? Or maybe because of local tribal practices that pre-date Islam and have continued until today (i.e. female genital mutilation)?

If you're going to compare countries, then compare apples to apples. Compare Saudi Arabia to 1500s England in terms of the rights of women and religious freedom, because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy much as 1500s England was a Christian monarchy. Compare human rights in a developing country like Indonesia to early 1900s U.S., where other religions were ostensibly tolerated but Christian norms were de facto.

But comparing human rights in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to the modern U.S. and then generalizing the results to all "Muslim" countries is, as Reza mentioned, just stupid.

You ask where to start? It is obvious that was not rhetorical in any way shape or form because your argument was poorly put together from the beginning.

"The total bill due in AMERICA tops 1 trillion." Then, "That's right, student debt in AMERICA..." There is even a reference to an AMERICAN President, and everything else about this video was about America. We see a reoccurring theme here newt?

So follows the logic that since this discourse is focused solely on American schools, then we are all talking about American schools. No other assumption is logical. My comment, with that prefacing in mind, is obviously intended for American schools. Yeah, take it out of context and I look like an idiot, but with the context I am not the one that looks stupid.

Let me give you another example. Say we are talking about gay rights in America and I just generalize the concept of gay rights after an intense discussion about just that. You could argue that since gay rights in tribal, African countries are different then I am stupid, but don’t be such a stickler for pathetic red herrings.

Second, the problems facing the poor are tragic. It is WELL DOCUMENTED; however, that poor children have lower grades. Why? Because it's hard to think on an empty stomach. In other words, it's hard to care about what the fuck is on the chalkboard when you have to worry about where you are going to get food at or hell, if you will have a roof over your head. This fact is not insulting, as you clearly say it is, this is reality. A sad, tragic reality that few in America have the balls to have a real discourse on. We trivialize it behind a false veneer. We make it seem like the poor try so hard and care so much but that if only we helped them a little more they could succeed. No, we have to help them a LOT more.

I think all colleges should be paid for by the government. I think books and research materials should be free. I think we can do a lot more than what we currently do.

Lastly, one student in my current class is obviously lacking in education and more so obvious does not care. She is a mother of three children, one of which is disabled. I can see why she just wants the degree and I don't judge her. You, on the other hand, do unintentionally judge this woman, newt. You insult her by suggesting her lack of educational pursuance is rare to the poor and that she must be failing that pursuit because of a lack of drive. She cannot care about bettering her leisurely time newt, period.

Do you think I gave a fuck about learning, just for education’s sake when my brothers beat me, threw me down the stairs, choked me, humiliated me, and shoved a pillow over my face at night? Or when they punched my skull into concrete and beat my dog? You insult the hell out of me—as though I SHOULD have cared when I just tried to survive. As though I failed to care and that made me a failure. The poor should not care—they should survive. We should all help them care.

When you describe it that way... "tribal policing" sounds a lot like "policing" everywhere else.

Nope. She's tribal police, which means unless this was the chief or his son, she's going to get off scott free. It sucks ass, but that's tribal policing for you.

Actually I have seen the opposite, this 'fringe' as you call it being the norm, but being hidden from view as they understand it looks bad to cheer a hospital being bombed, but they can't help themselves.
As you noted, empathy is never a concern, forgotten in the good times, actively fought against in the bad.
Again, I disagree that this is a 'fringe' element of Israel, from everything I've seen, and those I have spoken to directly (including family members that work for the consulate) the eradication of Palestine and it's people are something they would love to see. The tiny minority dissenting are usually attacked, beaten, arrested, and often disappeared. We have seen this repeatedly in recent times.
Yeah, it's the oppression of Hamas that's the main controlling issue for the Palestinians, not the oppression of the occupying nation to the right....NOT. Many Palestinians are vocal about wanting peace...but not so in Israel, where a dissenting voice is quickly and violently silenced....like here.
http://videosift.com/video/Young-American-Jew-Stands-up-for-Palestine
As a people that suffered due to this tribalism, you might think they would understand it's foibles and avoid them, instead they have jumped head first into it themselves....making themselves akin to a fourth right.

EDIT: as an aside, it seems odd to me that all those claiming Israel has a 'right to defend itself' have already forgotten that Israel fired the first volley, so I hope after being reminded of that fact, they will admit that really Palestine has the 'right to defend itself', while Israel is the aggressor....right?

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

These comments are fun. Sounds like a bunch of old men, sitting on the porch yelling at the kids on the street.

"Stop foolin' around with that wood out there. Don't jump your bicycles over that! Get out of the road!!"

Take risks when you're young because the negative consequences are mostly restricted to your own stupid self. Later in life you'll have too many responsibilities and obligations. We've given up a lot in our modern societies. By sanitizing and padding our life experiences, we've lost the connection to the deep animal part of our brain.

There are still places in the world, even first world industrialized nations, where public ritual includes personal risk. Community celebrations that tap into our hidden animal instinct with displays that overwhelm all the senses. This is a powerful way to build a deep sense of tribalism and community, to draw people together into a supportive whole.

Tomorrow many of us will enjoy the July 4th celebrations. Sitting comfortably in our folding chairs with portable BBQs and coolers; behind ropes and guard rails designating a safe area to stand...emergency response vehicles in attendance. We'll enjoy our safe, convenient family activity then curse the traffic on the way home, inside steel boxes with triple air bags. Later on we'll feel slightly unsettled by the neighbor kids setting off bottle rockets around the block. Somewhere else in the world, they'll light a bonfire the size of your house and sing songs while they watch the young people trying to see how far they can walk into the flames. They'll feel the heat, see the light up close, sense danger and ultimately give up a piece of themselves to the crowd and the untamed thing that lies below sensibility.

I'll take the bonfire please.