September 30, 2005
Aha, Miller said: â€śOnce I got a personal, voluntary waiver, my lawyer, Mr. Bennett, approached the special counsel to see if my grand jury testimony could be limited to the communications with the source from whom I had received that personal and voluntary waiver. The special counsel agreed to this and that was very important to meâ€?.
So there was a second source? Must be Iraqi deputy prime minister Chalabi, as was rumored many times.
September 30, 2005
As the judge ordered the release of torture photos from Abu Ghraib, some conservatives voiced the opinion that this will help recruiting terrorists. Hardly, as violence is so common on the Middle East and their mind on US is made up anyway. Instead, the right wing managed to slowdown the investigation to the point it got not interesting to the majority of American public, happily ignored during elections last year. Look at this post, dated August of last year: â€śIf these charges are true, then this is not a few bad apples, but policy. And the person responsible for that policy is up for re-election soonâ€?. He was re-elected, indeed.
And there are bold hints to suggest that the policy of torture was common. So why the buzz about images? Most of the times words don’t disturb, because imagination is not based on much of understanding of what the word torture really means. Look at this link.
And there are to suggest that the policy of torture was common. So why the buzz about images? Most of the times words don’t disturb, because imagination is not based on much of understanding of what the word really means. Look at .
And I should not discredit ostriches that actually, contrary to common believe, do not hide the head in the sand.
September 29, 2005
I’ve read many stories and so far the best explanations are:
1. She sniffs the shift in balance of power
2. She wants to remind her cover about her importance
My own explanation: she was waiting until the information on what is exactly known to Fitzgerald is available and prepared her version to be consistent with the preferred scenario of events.
Update: No, this article misses the point.
What “crusade for the First Amendment”? What “ended up going to jail due to a miscommunication”?
I’m sure the reason of her going to jail was that she knew far too much to speak. Now, when it is sorted out what exactly she can tell of what she really knows, she is ready to testify.
September 29, 2005
Posted by theroxylandr under Politics
Let’s get back to basics. Politician is a hired professional, selected by the majority of voting taxpayers to represent their interests in the particular government office. As the electoral machine requires significant resources, the politicians are usually assembled in gangs (parties), that have the ways to establish the channels of funds, offered at the condition that the party members will protect the interests of those who had paid.
I would define the politician to be decent if he represents the interests of the vast majority of those who elected him and at least a significant percentage of those who did not vote for him.
It is hard to ask that the politician represents every single person who voted for him, as many people do not properly link their interests to their electoral activity.
September 28, 2005
I took the interesting political test at:Â http://www.okcupid.com/politics
What is says is:
ou are a
You are best described as a:
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
Interesting, apparently Democrats share my views. Well, good for them :)
If anyone is interested to take this poll, please include the words The politics test anywhere in the body, so the results will be visible here: the politics test at Technorati. It will also help to add the Polls tag.
September 27, 2005
This article describes how three Republican presidents increased the US national debt from $0.9 trillion in 1980 to $7.7 trillion today.
Imagine two brothers who switch the control over family budget between each other every few years. Imagine the frustration of the second brother who is watching how the first brother borrows money and give them out to his friends. They for sure remain now only his friends, as the second brother will never have so much money in his turn to bribe them.
September 26, 2005
All the last few months the topic of protecting the US and EU markets from the cheap textile from China is popping quite regularly. The dumping prices put a real danger of eliminating many thousands of jobs and China is pressed to choose between tariffs, limits or re-evaluation of its currency. Their refusal to act seems inapproprial and they deserve sanctions – correct? Lets take a look.
The cornerstone of the World trade is a comparative advantage of each nation. That’s the main reason goods are crossing the border.
- Saudi Arabia has oil.
- France has cheese, wine, Mona Lisa, Chanel #5 and some other cool things. They don’t export fraise, though.
- US have high-tech, good places to live, Hollywood blockbusters and military power to bite the shit out of anyone who has no enough liberty.
- China has the abundance of cheap, disciplined and reasonably qualified workforce.
25% of the word population are chinese. If they say that they are properly positioned to supply the other 75% with panties and bras than this is what they have to be allowed to do, if we like the word “freedom”.
Next Page »