What to do about Syria
A dictator has used poison gas to kill well over a thousand people. From a moral standpoint, the world has to view this as an unequivocal case for intervention. As the President said, there's no purpose to having international agreements prohibiting the use of chemical weapons if there's no enforcement. But as The Onion nailed in its inimitable fashion, the morals may be clear but the execution is a Gordian knot. The decision to go to Congress for approval to act looks like a political punt (since the thought of any more military action appears to be deeply unpopular inside the US), but even if it's a punt, it's also about time that Presidents get back to getting authorization from Congress before going to war. And on that note, if someone someday figures out the secret of time travel, they'll want to visit John Kerry in 2004 and see the look on his face when they tell him that as Secretary of State, in less than a decade, he'll advocate military action against a Ba'athist dictator who uses WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) against his own people. Nothing about this is pretty or pleasant, but there's no case to be made for standing aside with massive atrocities taking place.
Being poor places stress on the brain
American companies are flush with cash
So what are they going to do to return that money to the business owners?
Will adding a blue light make traffic intersections safer?
What makes child stars go crazy