http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/health/suicide-tourism-switzerland/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Its a rather strange phrase "suicide tourism" for people who go to a foreign country to receive assistance in ending their life. It must be strange as well to know exactly when and how you will die. To actually have an appointment for it to happen. When you land at the airport in Switzerland you have to realize everything you see and do from now on will be for the last time.

Its doubtful these people are thinking too much about such things. They are looking for relief from agony and an end of suffering....for them and their families. Death can be very difficult and everyone needs help at the end even if that means help to die. The fact that so many have to leave their own countries for this final assistance is both sad and a shame.

In America only four states, Vermont, Oregon, Washington and Montana allow assisted Suicide. I am convinced sooner or later more will allow it. It just seems the right thing to do. All the so-called "slippery slope" concerns should be able to be alleviated as this is really an issue of common sense. No one wants to die in agony and without dignity or watch someone they love go through such an end. Folks have no control over their birth and sometimes not much control over their lives so at least we should have control over how we wish to die. Don't you think?

Yes-
Refusing to acknowledge evidence should be a cause for concern, but that's beside the point.

In this case the point that has been made is there is no evidence. Admitting there is no evidence to see is not willful blindness.

Beheading is engaged in because it is seen as a humiliating way to execute someone. It is part of the propaganda related symbolism that these videos ooze with, but are often lost on US viewers. If you notice he was also dressed up in orange, which is a popular Jihadi symbolic reference to Guantanamo Bay (as is the shaven head, though the shaving of one's head can also be a holy act during the Hajj).

I work in evolutionary science as much or more than any neurophysiologist. None of his published work was relevant to the topic of evolution. 

It boils down to this .   Just because the petabytes of data supporting Evolution is somewhat lacking in its explanation of an eye protein or some other little known neuropathic process that represents 0.000000001% of the overall evidence for evolution....does not constitute a rational to reject the other 99.999999% of the petabytes of data.  .  And it most certainly does not constitute EVIDENCE  of the biblical story.   

You forgot the 4th fact....he failed to mention any evidence for creation.   His only evidence was that he thought it was too complicated to happen by mutation alone (same old argument).  And guess what, if he weren't 80 years old and lost to modern science, he would know he is right and there are lots of other mechanisms.

Wow amazing that he is 101, also amazing that he has had the same job all those years and that it's still in business. Unheard of in this day and age! Happy Birthday!!

Whatever health issues he has ,he is responsible for. He has allegedly leaked important classified information. If he is extradited back to the USA he will be given due process. He has chosen not to have his date in court. Therefore, he has to accept the consequences of his actions which has resulted in his poor health. The USA is not barbaric he would not be shot on the spot. Ask the terrorists that have been incarcerated . No sympathy just a fair trial is all he deserves.

You know, this complicated genetics stuff just seems so...well...complicated.    I therefore think that Genesis is a far more logical explanation.   It all just popped into existence.  So much simpler.   The evidence led me to this conclusion.   Please don't ask me to present any of this alleged evidence.

Here is another stupid statement.
Vyskočil’s doubts about evolution began during the time that he was studying neuron synapses: "I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense (Vyskočil 2011).

This is a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary science. It is not blind chance at all.  How can this professor evaluate evolution if he doesn't even understand what he is contemplating? This is inexcusable.

He is attempting to use science to justify his new beliefs.   That's not science.  Its a creationist approach.
This guy is no different. See this quote below


Also, instead of unfairly attributing the amazing designs manifest in creation to blind chance, I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?’
   
This isn't science. He has already concluded that God designed it and attempts to explain it with in reverse with science. That is NOT how science works. This is nothing new for alleged Christian "Scientists".

When America does right, as during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, I have acknowledged it.  Unfortunately doing right did for Mr Carter and he was voted out.  

Actually, some other things Americans have done are right too, few of them during GOP presidencies, however.

You can find some evidence in this link  as to the origin of the sarin.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syria’s neighbours, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan was known to be supporting the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. ‘We knew there were some in the Turkish government,’ a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, ‘who believed they could get Assad’s nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.’

The joint chiefs also knew that the Obama administration’s public claims that only the Syrian army had access to sarin were wrong. The American and British intelligence communities had been aware since the spring of 2013 that some rebel units in Syria were developing chemical weapons. On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort’. (According to a Defense Department consultant, US intelligence has long known that al-Qaida experimented with chemical weapons, and has a video of one of its gas experiments with dogs.) The DIA paper went on: ‘Previous IC [intelligence community] focus had been almost entirely on Syrian CW [chemical weapons] stockpiles; now we see ANF attempting to make its own CW … Al-Nusrah Front’s relative freedom of operation within Syria leads us to assess the group’s CW aspirations will be difficult to disrupt in the future.’ The paper drew on classified intelligence from numerous agencies: ‘Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators,’ it said, ‘were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria.’ (Asked about the DIA paper, a spokesperson for the director of national intelligence said: ‘No such paper was ever requested or produced by intelligence community analysts.’)

first, where was the media after this happened?  I'm calling them on their bullshit... the administration just wants to look like they tried something... they are feckless cowards who have no idea what they are doing... the american people better wake up to the fact that this administration will do nothing to protect them against domestic or foreign terrorists/enemies....  

If it's a religious component you'd like then I would point to the LRA which has been operating since 1986 (though it is pretty small scale now). With the ISIS we've seen massacres and persecutions done in "God's name." we've seen that with the LRA too, though the LRA have also used different tactics in terms of heavy child soldier usage, forcing children to rape their grandparents and kill their family so that even if they escape they will forever be shunned in their home community (goal is to cut down on defection), we've seen recruitment tactics from them that involve burning down a school and capturing those who make it out alive, the beheading, debreasting, and other forms of mutilation of entire villages with machetes and the mass rape of thousands.

I'd point also to the Liberian Civil War, the civil war in Sierra Leone, the DRC conflicts, the Rwandan Genocide, the Bosnian Genocide, the Genocide in Darfur, etc. There are plenty of examples of incredibly horrible and near incomprehensible human treatment of each other, particularly during conflict.

To be fair to realists, it HAS been the dominantly employed tactic throughout much of history; I would argue that it has rapidly lost value though as an overarching policy guide with the development of better communications technology, the development of strengthening international institutions, more inter-connectivity through economic cooperation (which makes those international institutions necessary), and the emergence of powerful non-state actors. It has been diminishing over time, with its last big boost in the US being the result of the Cold War and embodied in the Neo-Conservative US political movement and subsequently made incredibly unpopular again via President George W. Bush. Kissinger and Nixon are perhaps a couple of the better US examples of active realism within foreign policy. Reagan as well, and even George HW.

Its obvious that obamas foreign policy in the ME that is to do the exact opposite of what bush did is a failure on every count. Its obvious that he should have addressed the war in Syria when it started instead of waiting for it to explode and create isis. And its obvious that the peace loving moderate muslims in the ME and across the globe are not going to lift a finger to stop the radicals and will allow them to continue on their rampage until the evil west stops them and then the moderate muslims can bitch about western intervention in the ME.

That's a good question. I think some of it has to do with domestic political interests. We may not agree with Israel's approach in its international dealings, but it's Israel and US political realities has meant that publicly at least we have to support it. Other parts have to do with our security and interests overseas which both countries play a role in (though I would argue less so in Israel's case). Egypt has a lot of strategic interest for us so we are more inclined towards a realpolitik approach there (not the same thing as realism, but one is generally associated with the other).

We've had this conversation a bit before, and I've never really seen you put together an outline of these inconsistencies in much detail, outside of pointing to Egypt and maybe Syria (which isn't inconsistent with traditional US foreign policy dealings with regards to Egypt). Israel I think is both one of his largest failures and one of his greatest inconsistencies, but that was always expected since our policy has pretty much always been a "realist" approach to Israel since Israel is such a realist state.

But let's take a look at some of his major foreign policy decisions and see how they fit together under the ideological framework that I established in the first post:

1.) Iran: true to multilateral neoliberal form President Obama was both open to talking directly to Iran, and preferred to operate through international cooperation with Iran. As soon as he came into office he ended the Bush era practice of funding Sunni terrorist organizations in Iran such as Jundallah (a more classical realist approach to pressure mechanisms) and instead took a more multilateral approach through the utilization of both Russia, and Azerbaijan to put pressure on Iran (and to good effect) rather than following Israel's war drums and bombing the country. Likewise later on when Iran resurfaced as an issue his administration worked through international means to place very strict sanctions on Iran that lead to political change during the elections and remains a leverage tool. so engagement with Iran = pretty consistent.

2.) Somalia: one of President Obama's first policy moves overseas was to crack down on Somali piracy and Al Shabaab (al Shabaab of course being created during the employment of Bush era policies in the 2006 bombing and US backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia and the destruction of the ICU: another very realist approach). Instead, with President Obama in Somalia we see a more multilateral approach again. We've leaned less on Ethiopia, and have brought Kenya and the African Union into the mix and have employed US forces in a limited engagement capacity in the region too with drones and US soldiers being used in small numbers to assist both the fight against Al-Shabaab and the fight against piracy, and both the Somali government and the issue of Somali piracy have improved under our engagement in the area. So Somalia = mostly consistent

3.) Libya: here is a great example of President Obama's foreign policy style. Very multilateral, very inclusive of international organizations, and coupled with limited military engagement from the US. We supported a domestic movement against an old US enemy (one who Reagan tried to assassinate), and we did it through both the UN Security Council, NATO, and the utilization of the Arab League, all with some engagement by the US but not nearly as heavy as what was seen in Afghanistan and Iraq under his predecessor. since then we have worked with successive new governments to help disarm militias and engage in state building with locals taking the lead (instead of the US since it wasn't under occupation). So Libya = mostly consistent.

4.) Mali: Our initial response to the coup was standard US pressure mechanisms, halting of AGOA eligibility, suspension of our MCC Compact, and heavy diplomatic pressure, and vocal opposition through international mechanisms: particularly the UN (which had the desired effects). The subsequent Tuareg rebellion in the northern part of the country (something we've seen happen multiple times) was a bit of a situational game changer as was the eventual inclusion of Salafi Jihadi groups and their hijacking of the rebellion (which is actually the very thing that caused it to fail). We worked through international and multilateral actors (particularly the AU and France) to combat this incursion with again US involvement on a limited scale. And it worked, a peace deal is ongoing (with our encouragement), though it is likely to remain unstable for some time; one of the important things to note though was US cooperation with France which was largely absent under the Bush Administration and reflects a broader US counter terror strategy in the Sahel and Maghreb that has never been stronger. So Mali = consistent.

5.)The DR Congo: One of President Obama's first acts and major focuses in office in foreign affairs was this conflict. President Bush had actually already paved the way for President Obama through the use of more neo-liberal tactics (which President Bush became more fond of towards the very end of his administration). To that end. President Bush worked through partners on the ground and utilized limited direct US engagement support to help combat the Lord's Resistance Army through Operation Lightning Thunder. This was happening as he was transitioning out of office and as President Obama was coming into office. President Obama seized on this framework and enhanced / strengthened it working with the Central African Republic the DR Congo, Uganda and South Sudan (countries not necessarily inclined towards one another, particularly Uganda and the DRC) to launch another wave of crackdowns that was ultimately successful in severely reducing the LRA presence in all areas except South Sudan (and now due to the increased civil war in the CAR, the LRA has regained stronger operational grounds there as well).

Likewise we sent 100 US troops over to increase our military support initiated under Bush (and which Rush Limbaugh strongly criticized Obama for since we were sending soldiers over there to "kill Christians"). We also worked through the UN to strengthen and radically alter the UN mandate in eastern DRC. For the first time in Africa now the UN operation in the DRC was allowed to form an offensive unit to actively attack remaining rebel groups, which it did and the M23 rebel collapsed (the FDLR are next). This was coupled with strong US pressure against Rwanda and Uganda to reduce their material support for said rebels, and with a reform to conflict resource legislation here in the US to address economic factors of violence. The DRC still has a fair share of fighting ongoing, but it is far quieter now than it probably ever have been since independence. So DRC = Consistent

6.) Yemen: Largely a continuation and escalation of Bush era strategies with more attention placed on central government and institution building and federalization of Yemen. So Yemen = slightly less consistent. I think this rating though is the result of limited US options in Yemen in the face of our expenditure of political capital (both domestic and international) on other issues. AKA we've had to pick some of our battles and Yemen wasn't really one we chose.

7.) Central African Republic: we've responded with soft power pressures and support for AU and French operations while employing the use of sanctions on our end and pushing for a peace process (which is ongoing). CAR = consistent

8.) Nigeria: We've aided in Nigerian government capacity building, and helped (with France) to form a broader coalition of states against Boko Haram and related militias that has never existed before with unprecedented cooperation from both Chad and Cameroon, while maintaining a critical eye on Nigerian governmental abuses and while utilizing, once again, a limited US military engagement to support domestic efforts. Nigeria = consistent.

9.) South Sudan: Similar story, using regional and local actors to cobble together attempted peace processes while pressuring major actors through the use of sanctions and the international community. South Sudan = consistent, but also an area where we haven't expended the most political capital and attention.

10.) Israel: pretty straightforward power politics with a strong military twist, we've downplayed the nuances of the conflict while ramping up military spending and action. Very old school and very inconsistent with President Obama's normal foreign policy approaches, but fairly consistent with US traditional approaches to Israel. Israel= inconsistent.

11.) Egypt: We've been willing to engage for talks Egyptian political opposition groups like never before, which was a sharp break from President Bush's standing policy and is more neo-liberal, as was our adjustment of stances as local actors changed political entities within Egypt during the uprising. Which also happens to be pretty consistent with historical US policy in the region. where he takes a more classical approach is in the muted response to the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood and subsequent working relations with the Sisi government, a more realist and classical approach, but also one which is reflective of our priorities in the region which simply reflect working relations with Egypt at all costs (same as they are for Israel) due to their role in Israel / Palestine, international counter terrorism, Libya and Sudan, and the Suez Canal. All considered vital American strategic interests. that being said, we haven't been particularly warm with Egypt in the face of this forced tract. So Egypt = somewhat consistent / somewhat inconsistent but for good reason.

12.) Syria: Here president Obama tried to utilize his normal policy styles. He built a political coalition with France, Turkey and the UK (among others), but our action was talked down in congress, just as British action was talked down in their legislature. With the loss of our direct support and British support, French support dried up as well. Political capital via the Arab League had been expended in Libya and fatigue concerning such interventions had set in. So tactics had to change and that’s where the red line and the war drum beating came into play, a bit more of a realist style threat (a popular tactic in Israel for example) but it wasn’t taken too far, only to the point of encouraging Russian intervention and the loss of Syria’s chemical weapons, with some non-lethal aid and eventually some small arms munitions for chosen rebel groups. So once again, limited engagement, if not in exactly the way that President Obama wanted and while we did work through international and partner countries it once again, wasn’t in the way we wanted. Syria fell at a tough time for foreign policy execution and the complexities of it present a challenging point from which to engage in Syria now that it has lasted some time. Syria is also one of those conflicts where there are a lot of behind the scenes factors. So Syria = semi consistent (particularly at first), though limited.

13.) Iraq: A much more tricky country to analyze. President Obama inherited this mess (and it was / is a mess) from a previous administration that had relied upon not only a poorly constructed, but heavily damaging policy approach to occupation. As with some of Bush’s other policies though, he (and more specifically our generals such as General Petraeus) came to realize that the status quo wasn’t working and they skillfully developed the surge package which President Obama ended up utilizing. It was a much better piece of policy creation and while it increased troop numbers the major change was in our tactics. This surge represented a more neoliberal approach to Iraq and focused a lot on domestic actors and hearts and minds. Something which I think President Obama was more comfortable with but Iraq was also a war he had campaigned on to end despite the policy shift. The surge helped spark the Awakening which all but destroyed AQI, but the civil war in Syria coupled by the politically corrupt Maliki in office saved it. After our pullout, President Obama went back to the tactics that he was more comfortable with: international engagement and mechanism and pressures for reform within Iraq’s central government and institutions. Now we see a similar tactic being used in Iraq as we have seen in other conflict areas that President Obama has responded to, international engagement (particularly in pressuring regional countries like Saudi Arabia to target actors supporting the ISIS and Al Nusra) coupled with air strikes and limited ground support to supplement local actors while helping with containment through the utilization of Kurds and simultaneously pushing hard for Maliki to step down (which he eventually did). So Iraq: Somewhat consistent

14.) Russia: Pretty straight forward. President Obama has responded to this like many other conflict situations, high pressure through international institutions, the reliance on regional blocs like the EU through which we have expended a lot of political capital, and the enforcement of sanctions which has been the most up front we’ve been in opposing Russian interests since the Cold War (certainly a much stronger response than was seen in Russia’s war with Georgia). Before the Ukraine conflict we were happy to partner with Russia in nuclear arms reductions and successfully utilize Russian spheres of influence to pressure Iran. So our Russian policy = consistent.

16.) Burma: Burma’s opening up to the west I think has more to do with timing than anything else, never-the-less we have played it fairly well even if it has currently taken a back seat in our foreign policy focus. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is part of a more open government now, the country is working on a widespread national ceasefire and peace treaty with multiple armed groups, is looking to federation which would represent additional governmental reforms, and has turned more away from China. The big disappointment is the loss in momentum concerning the domestic treatment of Rohingya, which after initial criticisms and pressure, we’ve quieted about considerably (though the violence has reduced as well). So Burma = Neutral in consistency

17.) China: I’m not extremely well versed in our China foreign policy and our overall ‘Pivot to Asia’ which has been a major foreign policy focus of President Obama’s non-conflict related foreign relations platform so I can’t comment too well on it outside of what I’ve seen in the south China Sea territory dispute where we have been very stern with China (by engaging in symbolism such as flying our unarmed bombers through disputed airspace that China insists is theirs, maintaining dialogue about these disputes, particularly as they relate to Japan and Philippines (I am less well versed in how we have been responding to China’s recent spat with Thailand). We saw this dedication in part during our hurricane relief efforts with the Philippines which made China look bad. China has always been one of those interesting and special cases in the foreign policy world. The language of the pivot seems pretty consistent with President Obama’s policy trends though, So China =

18.) North Korea: North Korea is a hard state to engage with. President Bush was slightly more open to working things out internationally with North Korea and then promptly ended those talks with his public “Axis of Evil” declaration (a huge international relations blunder that occurred in the midst of sensitive policy talks). That being said, President Obama has had to deal with a new North Korean regime and I’ve seen him deal quite well with it, if not in the way I think he would prefer to have engaged North Korea (but alas many of those options were taken off of the table before he stepped into office). That said, during the routine flare up in hostile language and action by North Korea, President Obama broke from US tradition of bribes and called Un’s bluff which forced him to back down after a period of making a show about it (the temporary closure of the joint North / South Korean manufacturing plant). So North Korea = neutral but well handled.

19.) Economic statecraft: The entire primary basis of President Obama’s first presidential term revolved around the new policy of economic statecraft which is straight out of the neo-liberal playbook and has been widely utilized in our engagement overseas, particularly in Africa and Asia. So very consistent.

People need to be working, getting paid, and being able to afford food to put on the table and a house to live in. They're not going to get a paycheck if Wall-E takes over their job.

If anything, this is innovation, which we have been sorely lacking. Things much change to progress. This may blow up in his face and be a disaster, this may be something wonderful. This may be a push for some people to go into other fields of employment. Fact of the matter is, the old system wasn't working.