Consortium News has the article NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims. In analyzing the most recent gas attack, the article has this to say.

While it’s conceivable that Assad’s military is guilty – although why Assad would take this risk at this moment is hard to fathom – it’s also conceivable that Al Qaeda’s jihadists – finding themselves facing impending defeat – chose to stage a sarin attack even if that meant killing some innocent civilians.

Al Qaeda’s goal would be to draw in the U.S. or Israeli military against the Syrian government, creating space for a jihadist counteroffensive. And, as we should all recall, it’s not as if Al Qaeda hasn’t killed many innocent civilians before.

I don’t think Al Qaeda has to work very hard to draw in the U.S. or Israeli military against the Syrian government. These two governments have been itching to do this anyway. The US CIA has been overthrowing Syrian governments since 1949 at least.

As an aside, I was afraid that this article was going to report a New York Times story recanting their stories about the 2013 attack. That would be a real paradox for me since I don’t believe much of what the New York Times reports on foreign affairs, how could I believe a retraction? To my relief, The New York Times did not retreat by explicit statesent. The retreat comes from omitting the 2013 attack from their summary of all the evil things that Assad has done in Syria.

Naked Capitalism has the article The Global Corporate Saving Glut with commentary on and a link to another published article.

On the one hand, the VoxEU article does a fine job of assembling long-term data on a global basis. It demonstrates that the corporate savings glut is long standing and that is has been accompanied by a decline in personal savings.

However, it fails to depict what an unnatural state of affairs this is. The corporate sector as a whole in non-recessionary times ought to be net spending, as in borrowing and investing in growth.

You have to ask a deeper question. Why is it that the “natural” state for the corporate sector “as a whole in non-recessionary times ought to be net spending”?

It all comes down to my maxim “What part of no freakin’ customers do you not understand?”

If the efficiencies of automation, cost savings of outsourcing jobs, and unfair tilting of the market toward corporate interests decimate the buying power of your customers, what is there left to invest in?

Corporations aren’t investing in satisfying the needs of an increasing customer base exactly because their prior actions have shrunk the customer base below the break even point of the capacity they already have.

Wouldn’t it be rather insane to invest in more production capacity when you already have too much, and are shutting down some of what you already have?

I just can’t understand why economists are searching to find more trees while they are standing in the middle of a forest. The obvious answers are lying all around them and have been since the 1930s. Why can’t they see them?

We need to remember the short, eloquent explanation of why we have a government.

Whenever a member of Congress or a President proposes a law to enact, check it against this brief explanation of why we have a union for a country.

I think that just asking if it “promotes the general welfare” is the strongest filter their can be. For instance, do tax cuts for billionaires promote the general welfare?