markpkessinger
markpkessinger's JournalIf you are still having trouble accessing the NY Times . . .
. . . type in this link: http://www.nytimes.com/index.html
If you just type in "http://www.nytimes.com," the web server tries to run a default .CGI script. Apparently, their webmaster has not updated the default page setting on the web server.
If the Administration expects to maintain any credibility at all concerning Syria . . .
. . . then Jay Carney is going to have to do a whole lot better than this.
All this moralizing with respect to Syria . . .
. . . is, when you come down to it, just another toxic manifestation of "American exceptionalism," by which we appoint ourselves the moral arbiters of the world.
Just sayin'.
New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress
60%, according to this poll, oppose U.S. Involvement in Syria. And only 9% support military intervention. For those who are always grousing about how criticism of the President will keep people away from the polls in 2014, what kind of effect do you think a strike against Syria is likely to have for Democrats, given these numbers? Hmm?
[font size=4]New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress[/font]
Our very selective outrage over "moral obscenities"
Let us stipulate at the outset that the chemical attack in Syria was heinous, whomever the responsible party might be. Yes, indeed, it was, as Secretary Kerry put it, a "moral obscenity." But here's the thing: such "moral obscenities" occur all the time throughout the world. Indeed, was it not a moral obscenity when the Egyptian military slaughtered hundreds of Egyptian civilians just a couple of weeks ago? Yet there was no rush to respond and precious few calling it out as some "moral obscenity." Not to mention, has not the U.S. committed a few of its own moral obscenities in recent years? Are not the deaths of innocent bystanders killed by U.S. drones also a moral obscenity? Yet I see few calls to hold the U.S. accountable for its own morally obscene actions.
The very selective nature of Secretary Kerry's moral outrage is itself a "moral obscenity." It was invoked for the singular purpose of banging the war drums, to pave the way for yet another instance of U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East. Those who support this misguided venture should ask themselves this question: given the utterly abysmal record of "accomplishment" whenever the U.S. has intervened in the internal strife of Middle Eastern countries, what possible basis do you have for thinking intervening in Syria would result in any positive outcome whatsoever?
Live link to Kerry's remarks on Syria
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52847517Bloomberg: Why Is Obama Caving on Tobacco?
(Note: I am no fan of Mayor Bloomberg, but he is absolutely right to call out the President on this issue. I only wish he explored the ramifications of the TPP for other laws and regulations in areas other than tobacco as well)[font size=2 color=gray]By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG
Published: August 22, 2013[/font]
LAST year I endorsed President Obama for re-election largely because of his commitment to putting science and public health before politics. But now the Obama administration appears to be on the verge of bowing to pressure from a powerful special-interest group, the tobacco industry, in a move that would be a colossal public health mistake and potentially contribute to the deaths of tens of millions of people around the world.
Although the president’s signature domestic issue has been health-care reform, his legacy on public health will be severely tarnished — at a terrible cost to the poor in the developing world — unless his administration reverses course on this issue.
Today in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, representatives from the United States and 11 other nations begin the latest round of negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multinational trade agreement. The pact is intended to lower tariffs and other barriers to commerce, a vitally important economic goal. But if it is achieved at the expense of people’s health, the United States and countries around the world will be worse off for it.
The early drafts of the agreement included a “safe harbor” provision protecting nations that have adopted regulations on tobacco — like package warnings and advertising and marketing restrictions — because of “the unique status of tobacco products from a health and regulatory perspective.” This provision would have prevented the tobacco industry from interfering with governments’ sovereign right to protect public health through tobacco control laws.
< . . . . >
Waiting with bated breath. . .
. . . to see the intellectual contortions and twisted rationalizations the BOG will come up with to defend the Justice Department's attempts to seek immunify for BushCo.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PMNumber of posts: 8,392
