Saturday, August 18, 2007

Go, George
has a definition of political conduct and courtesy that is so low that his colleagues’ shame about his statement should be far greater than his opponents’ outrage about it.
Really? How come I did not see such a caustic editorial when the favorite YSR went after Chandrababu's mother?
Fernandes’s apologists — can there be any? — would say he was talking about China. They and he should be told we don’t care about what the Chinese allegedly do. India is not China.
There aren't any apologists because there is no need to be apologetic. As for India not being China - thanks to the ELM love for kissing Chinese arse - the day will not be far away when most of India will be China - in Chinese occupation that is.

And yes - George is allowed to say whatever he pleases - precisely because India is not China - at least not just yet


habc said...

OT - Pseudo secularism obstructing anti-terrorism efforts, says Gill

Intellectuals and some political establishments are wedded to weaken the country consciously and as a programme in the name of secularism, said Mr KPS Gill while speaking at a seminar in Bangalore...

Former Punjab director general of police KPS Gill on Saturday opined that India was being ruled by pseudo secularists and they did not have the political will to fight terrorism. Common people need to come together to change the situation, he said adding that maturity of the judiciary was another hope.

Wikipedia sleuth's tool reveals entry fiddling
A computer researcher has devised a way of tracking changes made to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, to expose organisations and individuals who tweak and airbrush their own entries.

Wikipedia and the art of censorship

also on BBC - wikipedia changes made by interested parties

It would be very interesting to see the changes made by Michael Witzel and gang

chitrakut said...

private Indian company buys uranium mining rights in Niger

chitrakut said...

Private Indian company buys Uranium mining rights in Niger

Ignore previous post. Contains incorrect link

srikanth said...

In his latest article,

B. Raman writes about why the leftists are opposing the Nuclear Deal. At the same time, he says he is not enthusiastic about the Deal because it would send wrong signals to the Muslims living in and around India.

Raman is right about the leftists’ reasons but is dead wrong in his analysis why the Deal has to be rejected.

It is very clear why the Nuclear Deal has to be opposed: It is simply not in our Nation’s interests, as it will make us a satellite of the USA. Whatever be the reasons of the left, we should gladly accept their rejection of the Deal.