Search

Unfortunately, the president succumbed to Donald Tusk's government and SIGNED the bill on extraordinary profits of fuel companies. I voted against this bill and was counting on a veto. Why? Because this bill, in addition to the tax (which will still be paid by consumers) and filling the government's coffers, does not eliminate the real causes of this high prices. The true cause of these high prices is, firstly, the EU climate policy and the associated taxes, which Morawiecki agreed to, and which were intensified and continued by Donald Tusk. Secondly, the obstinacy of the Polish government, which in view of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is neither looking for nor even trying to find alternative suppliers. These are the real causes of today's expensive fuel, which neither the Polish government nor - as it seems - the Presidential Palace wants to solve. Today, the president removed his image responsibility for expensive fuel, bowed to the government, but did not solve the real causes of the problem. Prices will temporarily drop a bit, but we will still have expensive fuel and another tax to pay. Because if we were to consider today the signing of the bill by Karol Nawrocki as justified, we would have to admit that Donald Tusk's solution was good. It was not. (translated)

"According to United Nations figures, a child is abused every 30 minutes in Congo. It has been nearly twenty months since I left Panzi Hospital. Today, with the closure of the airports in Goma and Bukavu (two cities under the administration of the AFC/M23 rebellion, Ed.), one has to go through the Rwandan capital, Kigali, to access them, which is not an alternative for me," explains Denis Mukwege, Nobel Peace Prize winner 2018. (translated)

🚨 VASCO CONTESTS TECHNICAL CRITERIA OF FLA-FLU, POINTS OUT VIOLATION OF CONCESSION RULES AND CITES DECISION FROM TJRJ IN ACTION FOR MARACANÃ Vasco filed an obligation lawsuit on Wednesday (1st) with a request for urgent protective measures to try to secure the Maracanã against Boca Juniors on October 20, for the semifinal of the South American Cup. In the action, the club directly questions the technical criteria used by Fla-Flu to deny the stadium, points out unequal treatment, supports violations of concession rules, and also explores a contradiction involving the Memorandum of Understanding. 📌 WHAT FLA-FLU ALLEGED In response to Vasco, the concessionaire pointed to the accumulated wear of the lawn, the climatic conditions of July and August, and the need to preserve the intervals designated for field maintenance. For 10/20, Fla-Flu specifically mentioned games of Fluminense on 10/18 and Flamengo on 10/22. With Vasco x Boca between these matches, there would be three games in five days. According to the concessionaire, this sequence would prevent procedures such as helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and repair of damage to the lawn. 📌 VASCO QUESTIONS THE TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION The first counterpoint is the lawn itself. Vasco highlights that, three days after the denial, it was announced that the existing field would be removed and new Bermuda Celebration rolls would be placed, with the return of football scheduled for 10/08. Vasco x Boca will be on 10/20. The club's thesis is that it would not be possible to use the accumulated wear of the old lawn as justification for a match that will take place 12 days after the return of football to the renewed field. 📌 GREENLEAF DOCUMENT IS USED BY VASCO Vasco also retrieves the technical planning prepared by Greenleaf, the company responsible for lawn maintenance, in August. According to the action, the document shows that the same procedures cited by Fla-Flu to deny Vasco x Boca have already been carried out in a concentrated manner between matches. The petition states that helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and damage repair have even been grouped in a single day after a match, even in a winter scenario and lawn wear. The question posed by Vasco is direct: if this work could be done in August to accommodate the sequence of games from Flamengo and Fluminense, why couldn't it be repeated in October, after the complete lawn replacement? 📌 INTERVAL BETWEEN GAMES Vasco also contests the argument of three games in five days by comparing the situation with the recent calendar of the Maracanã. The action argues that sequences with reduced intervals for Flamengo and Fluminense matches have already been admitted. For Vasco, if the necessary interval for lawn recovery is decisive for denying a match, that criterion must be applied equally to all clubs. 📌 SHOWS AND OTHER EVENTS The action also points out that the Maracanã hosts shows, religious gatherings, and events from other sports, including the installation of structures and occupancy of the field area. Vasco questions how the administration can reconcile these events with lawn preservation, yet considers it technically unfeasible to host a semifinal of CONMEBOL. According to the data presented in the action, at least seven extraordinary events unrelated to official football were held between 2025 and 09/30/2026. 📌 CONCESSION NOTICE Vasco cites item 3.4 of the Terms of Reference, which gives priority to football events from the official calendars of FIFA, CONMEBOL, CBF, and FERJ over other events. Vasco x Boca is an official semifinal of CONMEBOL. The action argues that there would be an "inversion of this priority" by accommodating shows and other events and denying the stadium for a match that, under the concession rules cited by the club, should have priority. The petition mentions "distortion of the concessionaire's obligations" and "violation of the equal treatment required by the Concession Notice." 📌 UNEQUAL TREATMENT Vasco summarizes its challenge in four points: • the lawn replacement would change the premise of accumulated wear; • Greenleaf's own planning would demonstrate that maintenance could be carried out between matches; • the calendar would show reduced intervals that have already been admitted for Flamengo and Fluminense; • other events are reconciled with the necessary care for field preservation. As a result, Vasco asserts that restrictions are being applied selectively. The action further cites clause 13.2 of the Concession Contract, which prohibits favoritism and unjustifiably different, discriminatory treatment, or "without technical criteria" that results in restricted access to the Complex. 📌 THE CONTRADICTION POINTED OUT BY VASCO Fla-Flu claims not to recognize the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025. At the same time, according to Vasco, it uses the document itself—especially the provision for four matches conditioned on availability and operational conditions—to justify the denial. Vasco points out contradictory behavior and invokes the principle of good faith. 📌 PREVIOUS DECISION OF TJRJ The action also cites the Instrument Appeal No. 3023517-70.2026.8.19.0000. On that occasion, Justice Alexandre Freitas Câmara analyzed the discussion regarding the absence of Fla-Flu's signature on the Memorandum. The magistrate stated that Flamengo and Fluminense, members of the concessionaire, had signed the document and pointed out that disregarding it later could represent contradictory behavior contrary to good faith. 📌 RECOMMENDATION FROM BEPE The issue of public safety also appears as an argument for the use of the Maracanã. According to the action, BEPE (Specialized Battalion for Policing in Stadiums) recommended holding the match at the Maracanã due to the magnitude of the confrontation and the expected public turnout. Vasco uses this recommendation to argue that the Maracanã is not just a preference of the club. The petition points to the stadium as the option that best meets capacity, location, structure, security, and operational conditions to host the match against Boca. 📌 SÃO JANUÁRIO IS NOT AN OPTION Vasco also differentiates the situation from the previous process involving Vasco x Vitória, when it did not obtain a preliminary injunction to use the Maracanã. This time, according to the action, São Januário cannot host the semifinal. The South American Manual requires a minimum capacity of 30,000 spectators starting from the semifinals, while the petition indicates São Januário has approximately 21,880 seats. Vasco acknowledges the Nilton Santos Stadium as an alternative but argues that having another stadium does not resolve the issue brought to Justice: is there legitimate technical and contractual basis for Fla-Flu to deny Maracanã? 📌 WHAT VASCO SEEKS Vasco is seeking a preliminary injunction requiring Fla-Flu to make the Maracanã available for Vasco x Boca on 10/20 at 9:30 PM. The request includes the maximum ticket allocation corresponding to the authorized capacity, the use of necessary facilities for organizing the match, the implementation of a mosaic, and temporary installation of banners in the same manner allowed for the clubs that are members of the concessionaire. In case of non-compliance, Vasco requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million. Vasco must inform CONMEBOL by October 5 where it will hold the return match of the semifinal. (translated)

In August, according to data from the European Alternative Fuels Observatory, 182,548 new battery cars were registered in the European Union - 50.8% more than the previous year. Their market share reached 31%. Almost one in three new cars sold in the EU was therefore... (translated)

PATIENT CHOICE OR WHEN A PODCAST IS WORTH SOMETHING IS ⚕️ And a bizarre unpleasant debate about colonoscopy can have one positive outcome. I can show you what specifically I want to change in healthcare. Capsule colonoscopy is a modern alternative; you swallow a small camera that takes thousands of images. However, if you choose it today instead of the covered standard, the insurance will not contribute even what it would otherwise pay for a regular examination. You have to pay for the entire procedure yourself. And that is exactly why I advocate for patient choice. The insurance will continue to pay for everything you are currently entitled to. However, if you choose a different, more expensive option, you will only pay the difference. We are not taking anything from anyone. We are just giving people a greater opportunity to decide about their own care. What do you think about that? 💙 (translated)

Apparently, it is in line with President Putin's stated intention to complete the conquest of Donbass this year and is also apparently an alternative to what is happening on the ground, where the Russian offensive is stalling and, in some places, even has small setbacks. (translated)

The Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices has warned about the risks of using compounded estrogen formulas as an alternative to the shortage of authorized treatments for menopause, warning that their absorption may be lower and variable, making them a resource to be considered only as a last resort. (translated)

If the UK were to apply to return to the EU, which Poland would welcome, it would mean that after a decade of analysis, London has come to the conclusion that membership is the optimal form of participation in the single market. Let's not be deceived by europhobes that there is a better alternative. (translated)

I almost completely disagree and am deeply surprised by this approach. First of all - Mr. @SlawomirMentzen mentions that the conscription should not have been suspended, which means that he would like to restore mandatory military service, that is, inflexible conscription of people into the army in barrack conditions. This is astonishing, as very many alternative methods, which are significantly better, are discussed. Secondly - the value of an army based on universal conscription on the modern battlefield is very debatable. Thirdly - it is crucial to convince citizens that it is worth fighting for the country. Restoring mandatory military service will certainly not achieve this. Fourthly - training large numbers of people is very costly, and the effectiveness of the money spent on it is at least questionable. I believe that we can, and even should, discuss some form of universal TRAINING, but definitely not the restoration of mandatory military service. (translated)

I can understand a 16-year-old turning on the "I don't care about politics, I want everything to burn" mode. They have no job prospects with AI, have only known economic crises, and still have at least 80 more years of life ahead. Many of us following here are in our 40s and 50s. We no longer have the privilege of waiting for Lula to finish breaking the country so that, if all goes well, things might start to improve by the time we are 60-70. Literally, our ONLY alternative is a change of power. To swap Lula for someone with less experience in structuring the state and less tendency to corrupt everything and everyone. Today that person is Flavio. In 4 years it could be another and then another. It's sad, but that's what we have. I do not want to turn 60 with Gleise, Bessias, Janja, Janones, and Lulinha's lawyer in the Supreme Court. I do not want to keep paying the bill for the endless social benefits, gas vouchers, free buses, and everything else that will be created until then to buy votes. I am tired of my money here being worthless abroad. I am tired of my R$ 100,000 here being just two months of salary for a fast food manager in the USA. I am fed up with Lulinha, Janja, Dirceu, Dino, Moraes, and the whole lot. If you're also tired of all this, anything other than voting for 22 is an irrational choice. And, in the worst-case scenario, if this whole mess continues, at least let it be other people robbing us and not the same ones from the last 20 years... (translated)

Next week at the latest, the speaker will give Andersson the exploratory mission. Referring to the fact that she still has the highest likelihood of the two options to gather a majority behind her and the budget, as 176 mandates have said they will vote for her. Anything else is (translated)

The alternative is to close the border for asylum seekers just like in Poland. That saves us shelter, benefits, CoA staff, and IND officials, plus millions in legal assistance. The total spending of the government on the asylum chain amounts to more than 9 billion euros per year according to the national budget. But that's the budget. Just assume it's double that. (translated)

You read the comments For them, there is either Marine Le Pen, or Melenchon, or Philippe as an alternative Do you see? I'm not pretending when I say that we have a people with blinders on (translated)