Today I had a "news craze". The papers, even "Forbes" had something to my taste. I spent a good part of my office day going through juicy articles on telecommunication industry, and then basking on currency exchange rate articles. Which, oh chich should I select to comment? My mind has been boiling and brewing sweeter and better thoughts since ... oh dear... *sigh*
Then I came around this article in the Washington Post about the hearing of the new Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey. So there goes today's post on the effects of the variation of the exchange rate. What the hell is going on here? Do you want the long version or the short version? The long version will take me
more time than that I dispose of to write this entry, so the short version should make it. (For the long version, go do some reseach, that's why I asked.) So, basically, after deposing Mr. Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General, for all the scandals covered widely in the newspaper, and profusely commented here, President Bush picked a new attorney general, this time in the person of Michael Mukasey, a lawyer with quite some "miles" to show up for in the American Court. If you are interested in his record in the field of Law, please click on the picture to the left. It should take you to the White House site, and there to the "Fact Sheet" of Mr. Mukasey. (It's about time you do some research yourself as well.) Certainly looks quite some "wrap" there. Judge and all. Unlike in Gonzales' case, you actually perceive a certain degree of experience and knowledge. Oh well, at least he doesn't look all that much like a spineless sychophant. Then, is it so?The hearings went just fine the first day (I understand it's a two-day hearing), as Mr. Mukasey pretty much positioned himself as an upright, law-first attorney, who, according to his own declaration, won't bend to political interests or White House pressure (Mukasey Vows Not to Bow to Political Power, Washington Post, 2007.oct.18). Law is Law and that's the end of it. Then again, there was a not-so-reassuring note at the hearings, which I transcript as follows, from the article:
During a sparring session with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), for example, Mukasey declined to say whether the president could order a violation of federal surveillance law, as Democratic lawmakers have alleged the Bush administration did when it authorized a warrantless wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Mukasey said he could not provide an informed analysis without being briefed on the classified program but noted that some lawyers think the law does not entirely limit the president. "I find your equivocation here somewhat troubling," Feingold responded.
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, October 18, 2007; Page A01
In the second day of the hearing, after having lifted the hearts of everybody, by not condoning torture or the law-bending/law-skipping by the president, Mr. Mukasey turned into almost a carbon copy of what Mr. Gonzales was: a tool in the hands of a reckless president ready to trash a 231 year old (or so) Costitution for the sake of his private interests, a and his unjustified cruzading for the sake of his own megalomania. That very the law does not entirely limit the president is coming to the surface in a horrible manner. Explain to me how this president can go to war to "allegedly" free a country from a tyrant (and now plans to attack Iran too, due to "suspects on nuclear matters"), because of the repeated violation of human rights AND he violates SEVERAL of those human rights IN HIS OWN COUNTRY! Suc violations including the ordering of torture for prisoners, violating the right to privacy of the citizens, forcing third parties (like telecommunication enterprises) to break the law, "denying" healthcare, and downright obstaculizing the democratic process in the country (the continuous vetoing of bills, no matter what the bills were about, until he got his war budget).
Far beyond a simple case of contradiction, you see a clear case of an "agenda" developed, that has NOTHING to do with the country, and everything to do with a derranged, unethical man. How could America re-elect him? What kind of "Republican Values" does he stand for? As far as I undestand, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. Am I right? Well, to my understanding, a conservative political philosophy would place the People, the country's OWN PEOPLE before the rest of the world. It would seek stability, social security, welfare and inner development. Opposed to the "liberal politics" which would seek for the market opening, the market-vision as well as the pursue of market and social competition (this "social element" ruled by the market) on a global, world wide level. The conservative is pro-people, pro the little man, and the liberal is pro the enterprises, as it invites the little people to compete and become enterprises and successful, big enterpreneurs themselves. See the scope now?
Okay, now explain to me how a CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT pays no attention to the victims of Hurricaine Katrina FOR YEARS, cuts on welfare and healthcare, allows jobs to be cut at horrifying rates (48.000 in one week in February, 28.000 in one week recently), aids to create a highly unstable economical environment with sketchy Free Trade Acts, war, closing factories, deteriorating healthcare in ALL ITS STAGES, diving currency exchange rate... and then say that the "economy is sound" (I will never let go of this one).
If President Bush were reelected for a third period, by the end of it the U.S. would be a third world country and Mexico would be pulling higher and higher walls to keep Americans from illegally immigrating.
And all this, because while everybody is equal before the Law and the Law is obligatory for everybody, one man is above it, and therefore superior to all his fellows: the President.
Love to All,
No comments:
Post a Comment