25 May 2013   3 comments

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, stated publicly that his forces would support Syrian President Assad, suggesting that Hezbollah is “fighting in Syria against Islamic extremists who pose a danger to Lebanon.”   Recent fighting has been particularly fierce near the town of Qusair, near the border with Lebanon.  The pledge confirms what we have known for some time, but it marks a clear escalation in the intervention of outside forces in the Syrian civil war.   The next step will likely come from Israel.

US President Obama made one of his most important foreign policy speeches at the National Defense University in which he essentially ended the “global war on terror” launched by President George W. Bush.  The declaration was long overdue, but is important to remember that President Obama is not an “antiwar” president.  He reserved the right to use force against the enemies of the state, but he no longer believes that the US is threatened by a coordinated enemy (if he ever believed that high degree of threat from al-Qaeda).  His speech in Norway when he received the Nobel Peace Prize was a vigorous defense of the Just War Doctrine.

There were a large number of protests all over the world against Monsanto, an American company closely tied to genetically modified food.  There were protests in 436 cities, and the number of protesters was estimated in the millions.  It has proven to be very difficult to evaluate the health effects of genetically modified foods since the US Congress effectively took the power to review those foods away from the US Food and Drug Agency.   Many believe that the GMOs are disruptive and dangerous.

Posted May 25, 2013 by vferraro1971 in World Politics

3 responses to “25 May 2013

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. If only there were some way to aquire GMOs and for some research body to evaluate them:

    Click to access AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

    And you know better than to do the “many people believe X” argument:
    http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

    Like

    • Thanks for the link. The AAAS is truly an authoritative body, and I recommend the report to everyone interested in the issue. The report, however, does not reveal the tests conducted by AAAS to reach its conclusions. There are, in fact, highly reputable studies that reach different conclusions: http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf. Since I am not a scientist, I lack the ability to reach my own conclusions.
      There is, however, another issue that does concern me on which I do have some expertise. It is probably dangerous to privatize food–for the same reasons why I worry about attempts to privatize water. Recent court decisions have given rights to Monsanto even when its seeds have been accidentally sown. If the blowing winds can effectively give private rights, then the food supply is in danger of being exploited at the expense of many.
      Finally, I am not sure why the “many people believe” argument is not relevant politically. When millions of people protest something, we need to figure out how best to address their concerns, not dismiss them. Perhaps Monsanto should be more open about its own tests and evidence if it wishes to persuade people that GMOs are safe. It is, in fact, interesting that the AAAS issued its statement in an effort to prevent the labeling of GMO foods. Why prohibit the dissemination of information that some people believe is relevant?

      Like

  2. Oh, I will never defend Monsanto. I think people have legitimate cause to protest those bastards. And I sometimes forget that you cover the political side of things and not necessarily the biological side of things so people protesting (for whatever reason) is relevant to you.

    In regards to the Earth Open Source pamphlet, there is a growing trend to do science by press release and it is very troubling. Even on page 26, the paper laments how little evidence for their case comes from peer reviewed journals. They say that it is because Monsanto blocks unfavorable studies because those studies seem to violate the terms of agreement when purchasing those seeds. The authors seem to be correct in this matter. I would say that is a protest worthy concern on its own.

    Like

Leave a reply to Zack Ferraro Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.