Saturday, January 14, 2006

Don't Count Out Alberta

I don't normally look at the polling for Alberta cause its a given right. Wrong! In this election the winds of change are sweeping everywhere. Here is the latest Ipsos Reid numbers which for the first time in memory, mine as fading as it is, the NDP are ahead of the Liberals!

DATE

CON

NDP

LIB

GRN

MOE

LINK

01/12/06

59

17

16

7

-



Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Liberals Put On Notice

Note to Liberal Candidates, please pack up your offices, put away your signs, go for a vacation, the Globe and Mail has announced that it is endorsing the Conservative Party in this election. Editorial: Three reasons why it's time for a change

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Voting for Capitalism On January 23

As Marx said the State is the Executive Branch of Capitalism. Even so called workers parties, are merely the window dressing to ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism. So lets look at the reality of our Canadian Executive Branch.

The Liberals are State Capitalists, firm believers in the nanny state and giving grants to friends and supporters. They are a centralist party which stands anarchist (Proudhonian) federalism on its head thanks to good old philosopher King PET. Socially they believe in liberalism, allowing the individual social freedoms. The would be considered Libertarian by American standards, if American politicos had standards. They believe the state should fund programs, and business and that with that folks who get their money from the Liberals should be grateful next election.

The Conservatives are Corporate Monopoly State Capitalists, they save their biggest cash handouts to the corporate elites, the Bay St. Boys and the Fraser Institute Board of Directors. While crying for Freedom, they neither believe in a truly free market nor a free society. They believe that the bigger the business the better. They believe the state should fund private capitalism. And they have Reformed over the last ten years, with a strong base of social conservativism which denies liberty. While proclaiming the mantel of Libertarianism, when it comes to gun ownership, they deny choice and liberty on issues like marijuana, sex and abortion. They believe that you should keep all you earn, I'm alright Jack, and please give a tithe to the church of your choice. They are the party of shop keeper's and the self employed like their hero; Ebenezer Scrooge.

The New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois are Social Capitalists, not quite socialist, nor even democratic socialists, these classic liberals are Social Democrats. They believe the State should level the playing field for individuals and business. That a market economy is a mixed economy. That rules and regulations are required for Order and Good Government. They can be liberal on social and personal issues or be intrusive, they support a woman's right to choose, but want to ban guns and smoking. They see the role of the state as making capitalism work as an investment in society, they believe in real shareholder democracy, at the parliamentary level and in the financial sector. They believe in taxation as a way of spreading social wealth around as a social investment.


The Green Party is a liberal party that also believes in Social Capitalism, promoting business that is green to make green. They would tax big business as polluters and regulate social change in the business community to get them to realize that they are wasteful in production, distribution and consumption. They hate smoke stack industries as wasteful, and Newfies as seal killers. They would again promote a shareholder democracy and would be open to more democratic workplaces. They admire faux fur and believe bicycles should be mass transit.

So on January 23 vote for the party that you believe will best act as the executive branch of capitalism.

But have no illusions that any of these will ever change essential nature of capitalist society. That would take a social revolution.

You may think you are voting for Change, but all you are doing is changing managers.

This has been brought to you courtesy of the letter @ for anarchy.

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Imagine A Bloc Canadien

Yep if only it weren't that little item in their platform the BQ could become the Bloc Canadien (BC) and be a second Left/Social Democratic party in Canada. And one that could still champion Quebec and Francophone rights. If only for that one little item in their platform.

National Post | Save separation, many Canadians approve of Bloc platform

MONTREAL -- It will probably never happen, but if Gilles Duceppe would just forget about independence, the Bloc Quebecois might well find itself enjoying support in the unlikeliest of places: the rest of Canada.

And folks like Canada's Lenin cause he has charisma in both official languages.

Loyda Arneson, of Richmond, B.C., also said she finds the separatist leader appealing. "Mr. Duceppe says what he wants to say, he always has intelligent answers or he has facts to prove what he's saying; I just like that," Arneson said.


A tip o the blog to Jacks News Watch for this.

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Greens May Win A Seat

Conservative Life goes out on a limb and predicts; Green Party poised for major break through this election with a glorious win of ONE seat, probably in B.C. I will join him on that limb and second his prediction.

Of course his crew of partisan Conservative readers all think that this will take votes away from the NDP. But as I have blogged here, and commented on the Conservative Life site, Jim Harris and his inner circle are Red Tory's and will have an impact on the Conservatives and Liberals more than the NDP.

The NDP national colours are Orange and Green remember, and whose environmental policies are supported by the establishment Green NGO's. While the Liberals and Tories are failures when it comes to the environment since they believe in Sustainable Capitalism, which isn't.


Tags
Posted by at 1 comment:

Canada Conversation Down

This just in...
CanConv


Sorry! CanConv is down for maintenance.

Check back: Sunday January 15, 10pm EST
Posted by at No comments:

Vote For Canada's Politcal Nutbar of 2005

Courtesy of Scott Tribe at Progressive Bloggers.

Voting For Canada's Political Nut of 2005 begins!
The ballot for the prestigious award of being Canada's Political Nut For 2005 is now open! Proceed here to vote. Warning. you can only vote once, so make it count. Note also that you also wont be able to see the voting results as they proceed.. its a true secret ballot to prevent any "freeping" of the vote if a favoured candidate jumps ahead or falls behind.

And since its a vote for moonbats from the Liberal and Conservative political sphere, I am not included. Nor are any of the Left. Interesting that.

It will be a difficult choice since several of my favorites are listed. And if you have been reading my blog (of course you have) you know who you, err they are. Let the Games Begin!

The Candidates

Rob Anders - Conservative MP for Calgary West.
Reason given for nomination: "for crafting flyers featuring a masked gunman that suggests a link between crystal meth use and violent crimes to "homosexual sex marriage," then mailing it to a constituancy in another province. Maybe he thinks they'll all move to his own constituancy and vote? What a lovely way to spend our tax dollars"

Andre Bosclair - newly elected leader of the Quebec Parti Quebecois.
Reason given for nomination: for his cocaine revelations during the PQ leadership campaign and then his overreaction to Governor-General Michaelle Jean poking a bit of fun at him over said revelations at the yearly media/political roast.

Jason Cherniak - a Liberal blogger well known for his support of Paul Martin
Reason given for nomination: "projecting a Liberal Majority... and how about his recent post on why he feels the campaign is a good one and will only get better. How about his post back in the summer about the David Herle speech that Herle gives to everyone saying that "The libs will win in the east, get a 100 seats in ontario and make gains in the west." Jason bought into that"

Sheila Copps - former Liberal Deputy PM among other things. Now a political commentator/columnist.
Reason given for nomination: for openly admitting to giving out free advice to the NDP and Conservatives on how best to defeat Liberal House leader Tony Valeri in her former riding.

David Dingwall: former Liberal cabinet minister and president of the Canadian Mint
Reason given for nomination: his "I'm entitled to my entitlements" comments which have made their way into Tory TV spots.

John Duffy: Liberal strategist
Reason given for nomination: for attempting to defend Scott Reid's 'beer and popcorn line' (see below) by standing by it and repeating it, and offering the line, ""Well I don't think that any insult was intended to the Beer or Popcorn producers. Liberals are proud of those people."

Gurmant Grewal: former BC Surrey Conservative MP
Reason given for nomination: for trying to pretend he was an agent from Alias with the whole taping episode of purported "crossing the floor" talks he had with the Liberals.. plus his incident at the Air Canada check-in counter.

Carol Jamieson: Vice Chair GTA Presidents Council, CPC
Reason given for nomination: "She basically took the lead of a group of nobodies in the CPC party to try and oust Harper. Fair enough, but she did it this fall, when there's no way there would have been time to even hold a leadership convention to replace him. That alone wouldn't clinch it for her. But the fact that Harper is running a nearly flawless campaign and seems poised to become Prime Minister shows just how insane her entire crusade was".

Warren Kinsella: Former Liberal strategist and noted Canadian political commentator/blogger
Reason given for nomination: "I hate to put his name in for this because I generally like his site, but of late I have to nominate him for his diatribe vendattas on those who disagree with him. In particular, going over the top with first Robert McLelland (myblahg) and now John Baglow (drdawg). There's also the over-defensive and homophobic reaction to Carl Fulsome's rather bland critique of Fury's Hour. (Personally, I would also top it off with his unceasing vendetta against his party because he hates their leader which borders on the pathological ...It's just all too bizarre".

Mike Klander: Former VP for the Liberal Party in Ontario:
Reason Given For Nomination: Posting on his blog the now infamous photos comparing Jack Layton's wife Olivia Chow to a "Chow-Chow" dog... and then expressing surprise that anyone other then his friends would have read the blog entry.

Tim Murphy: Liberal Party adviser- Prime Minister Martin's Chief of Staff
Reason Given For Nomination: his part in the Gurmant Grewal taping affair, for getting involved in talks with Grewal in the first place when he should have known better.

Monte Solberg: Conservative Party MP Finance Critic
Reason Given For Nomination: "for the following quote on his blog in May 2005 upon losing the nonconfidence vote : 'I look forward to going to church where I wish to be chided, and made to feel very sorry and then to be forgiven.' ...it seems to me that wanting to be humiliated in order to feel better just because the Speaker of the House voted for the government is a bit much"

Carolyn Parrish: former Liberal and independent MP
Reason Given For Nomination: her interview in December on CBC's The Current, where she took umbrage at political blogs for attacking her and asked the question how to stop the blogs from attacking her by use of some legal mechanism.

Werner Patels: Alberta blogger
Reason Given For Nomination: "From Blogging Tory to Liberal/NDP then ha ha, it was all a big hoax on you lefties, to I'm a Provincial Liberal in Alberta but now a Conservative National and the latest, I'm too partisan". Rather notable that a Blogging Tory was the first to nominate him. Also notable that there wasnt a rush from that group to congratulate him on his Gurmant Grewal-like stunt.

Scott Reid: Liberal Communications Director:
Reason Given For Nomination: For making the infamous ""Don't give people $25 a day to blow on beer and popcorn" comment while attacking the Conservative Childcare plan.

Gordon Stamp: Former Campaign Manager for Alberta Conservative MP Peter Goldring:
Reason Given For Nomination: Being forced to step down as campaign manager for writing under the pseudonym "Psycho" at right-wing site Free Dominion advocating Alberta separation and comparing Alberta to a battered wife.

Belinda Stronach: Current Liberal Cabinet Minister
Reason Given For Nomination: "She owned the public with the blond hair and see-through cloths; once elected, had a fairly hot affair with Peter MacKay; and finally managed to break his and Stephen Harper's heart by switching over to the Liberals. What a backstabber to her constituents."

Joe Volpe: Current Liberal Cabinet Minister
Reason Given For Nomination: "I'm gonna have to go with Volpe for his ridiculous overreactions. He called the Conservatives racists twice in 2005, once even invoking the Ku Klux Klan." Also mentioned was Volpe's penchant for overspending his expense account when taking guests out to lunch or dinner.

Margaret Wente: Globe and Mail columnist:
Reason Given for Nomination: "for calling Rick Salutin an "apologist for terror" in her Globe and Mail column of July 9, 2005."



Tags







Posted by at No comments:

Conservative Governments Kill Workers


Simon Pole reminds us ,Tories Sent Troops Into Winnipeg 1919 .that it was the Borden Conservative government in 1919 that ordered the Army and RCMP to put down the Winnipeg General Strike.


They were backed up by the Chamber of Commerce (then known as the Board of Trade) Militia, the Committee of 1000, armed members of the ruling class, vigilantes in our own Wild West show down. At least one striker was killed and hundreds injured.

The Borden Government also ordered the army into Calgary where they put down the sympathy strike there, forcing railworkers and posties to go back to work at gunpoint.

And it would be remiss not to mention it was under the Conservative government of R.B Bennettthat the RCMP acting as a paramilitary army massacred striking Estavan Miners and their families in 1931.

And it was again the Conservative government of R.B. Bennett that ordered the RCMP to stop the On to Ottawa Trek in Regina, which also resulted in injuries and death to unarmed unemployed workers.

On June 3rd and 4th, after seeing the government's indifference to their plight, more than 1,000 men decided to go to Ottawa to present their grievances, hoping to create awareness for their cause. They set out first by train, but after receiving a decree from Prime Minister Bennett, they were denied access to the train cars. Eight men undertook the walk to Ottawa to argue their case, while 2,000 others settled in Regina, where they were fed and lodged by private citizens while being sustained by the government of Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister refused the delegation's demands and the eight returned to join the Regina group. On July 1st, 1935 they organized a public protest that was broken up by police squads who came to arrest Arthur Evans and a number of other speakers. This act prompted a riot, with the marchers throwing stones at the police officers. Two people died in the clashes, including a local constable; dozens of people were injured; and 130 were arrested.

R.B. Bennet was from Calgary West, and originally had sat in the Alberta Legislature before being elected to Ottawa and later to become leader of the Conservative Party.Sound familar?

The jack boots you hear are the Conservatives marching to power under Calgarian Stephen Harper.

The army. With guns. In our Cities. In Canada. It has happened before.


Tags
Posted by at No comments:

Oiling the Wheels of Democracy in the Middle East

I highly reccomend that those in the blogosphere that want to get the goods on the Middle East take advantage of the variety of news sources available on the WWW and add this site to their news readers, Al-Ahram Weekly, from Egypt.
The late Edward Said was a regular contributor.

From which I found this article;

The dilemma of democracy
That true democracy in the Middle East would threaten US strategic and economic interests explains why it won't be happening soon, according to Ayman El-Amir
In the last half-century, US-Arab relations coalesced around defined common interests, not shared values. These were best exemplified by the historic meeting, on 20 February 1945, between US President Franklin D Roosevelt and King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud aboard the cruiser USS Quincy at the Great Bitter Lake in Egypt's Suez Canal. The upshot of the congenial meeting was very simple: an exchange of guarantees ensuring free flow of oil to US and Western markets in return for securing the continuation of the Saudi ruling family. With the exception of few, short-lived revolutionary-brand regimes in the Arab world, this served as the model for US-Arab relations from then on.
Hence, these relations were unperturbed by the Arab-Israeli conflict or threatened by the brief and measured Arab oil embargo during the 1973 October War. The drama of 11 September changed the paradigm. For the US, the challenge was how to maintain and further strengthen its oil interests based on an unsustainable paradigm

From the pragmatic point of view, the US has little interest to undercut its traditional allies for the sake of democratic ideals.A new paradigm, therefore, will have to develop. Its elements will probably consist of a regional alliance against terrorism as a security threat, heavy US military presence in the region to deter Iran and guarantee the uninterrupted flow of oil, and soft-pedalling on the ambitious agenda of democratic reform. This may not be much to the liking of grassroots forces clamouring for democratic change, the rule of law and full respect for human rights. If they should rebel, armies of security forces will be at hand to control them, with an iron fist in a silk glove. What will be the US reaction? It will not be the first time the US will have abandoned the nationalist forces it once encouraged. In the meantime, autocratic regimes throughout the Arab world will bide their time and wait for Bush to pass too.
Tags











Posted by at No comments:

Regressive Tory Tax Plan

In order to pay for the oh so generous 1% GST cut the Tory's plan to renege on the current personal tax cuts that were introduced by the Liberals. So what do economists have to say about this?
Tory plan to roll back low-income tax cuts worries some business

The price tags Costing Liberal, Tory and NDP promises

What do economists have to say about the veracity of Harper's financial plan

The Conservative Party's fiscal plan, a key part of its formal election platform released yesterday, counts heavily on the rollback of a tax break implemented by the Liberals to finance its spending promises.

The Tories confirmed that, if elected, they will reverse a cut of one percentage point in the tax rate for the lowest income tax bracket, and roll back an increase in the basic personal exemption to make the books balance under their spending plan.

But nowhere in the Conservative's 46-page election platform is that crucial policy spelled out, said Dale Orr, chief economist at consulting firm Global Insight (Canada).

"One would have thought they'd be a little more forthcoming," he said. "They certainly are not giving a high profile to something that is very important to a lot of Canadians."

Reversing the two tax changes -- which were part of the Liberals' November economic update -- would generate about $4.5-billion in 2006.

That money would be crucial to implement the plans in the Tory platform, Mr. Orr said. "It finances a lot of things."

In their platform, the Tories say their policies would generate about $45-billion in tax relief over five years, the biggest chunk of which would stem from reducing the goods and services tax.

Finn Poschmann, associate director of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, said restoring the higher income tax rates would carry "some political cost with it."

He noted, however, that the income tax cuts put in place through the pre-election economic update, some of which were retroactive to the start of 2005, are not actually law yet. Still, he said, it would be unpalatable for the Conservatives to roll back the retroactive portion, and it would be tough enough to kill them going forward.

And what does the Business Press have to say about the Harper Budget Platform? Horray more corporate tax cuts. Notice that the Conservatives will keep some of the Liberal promises.

Canada's Harper Pledges Tax Cuts in C$90 Bln Platform (Update1)

 The party will honor the current Liberal Party government plan to cut the corporate income tax rate by 2 percentage points to 19 percent by 2010, according to the party's platform released today. Individuals won't pay capital gains taxes if proceeds from the sale of assets are reinvested within six months, Harper said at an event in Oakville, Ontario.


And the Conservatives seem to be, as usual, getting their economic marching orders from the Fraser Institute. Cut corporate taxes to boost productivity, says Fraser Institute

Tags








Posted by at No comments:

Let Sleeping Lions Lie

The Lion of Israel remains in his coma.Sharon Cannot be Awakened

The world holds its breathe thinking that this old man is the source of peace in the Middle East. What a farce. He is a terrorist by any other name.

What difference between the living obituaries written about him full of praise and those full of vile invective written when Yassar Arafat passed on.

Exalting Sharon
Collective amnesia seems the order of the day as Ariel Sharon's health takes a serious turn for the worse, writes Ramzy Baroud

Tags
Posted by at 2 comments:

Kate the Con Artist


Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals rants, no that's not strong enough, she literally goes off the wall over the NDP arts and culture platform.

Well of course that's because they have one and the Conservatives don't. They don't need one cause they have support of self employed artists like Kate. And besides the idea of culture for the average Conservative and the Blogging Tories is the Faux network.

You see Kate flings clay and makes pots,and is an airbrush artist (so is Maaco) and probably stuffs Small Dead Animals, and calls this art. Which she probably sells out of the back of her truck, along with the usual compulsory Black Velvet Paintings. This is of course not ART it's called homecrafts.

Kate doesn't need no stinking Canada Council Funding. She probably files her income taxes as a self employed artist, single person company, in order to avail herself of all those corporate tax breaks, soon to be increased by the Harper, that the Liberals handed out over the years. Tax breaks us poor working stiffs don't get.

Ironically Kates rant against Arts and Culture funding is published on the CBC website, the taxpayer funded CBC. Yep the voice of Canada lets this rightwhingnutbar speak about ending its existence. This is also the same Kate who demanded that the CBC censor another blogger making comments about her. Very libertarian of Kate.

Kate reminds me of Hermann Goering who once said; "When I hear the word culture I reach for my gun." She is the very spitting image of a Con (servative) Artist as her rant proves. Though it would probably be a good idea Kate to wipe the drool off your lip.

"She wouldn't know Art if it walked up and slapped her in the face", dr. DadA



Tags










Posted by at 1 comment:

Liberal triskaidekaphobia

Fear of the number 13; triskaidekaphobia

According to Sun Political Columnist Greg Weston though the Liberals should actually fear Friday the 13. Friday 13th bad for Grits

Fear of Friday the 13 is also known as friggatriskaidekaphobia, which is why you could hear Liberals across Canada crying O' Frig as the proverbial poo hit the fan and all the wheels fell off the campaign wagon.

Friday the 13th: Paraskevidekatriaphobia rules the day

And ten days from yesterday the Liberals could be saying 23 Skiddo

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

The New Liberal Leader


With the pending doom of a certain Conservative victory creating gloom in the Liberal war room, the knives are out, Some Liberals brace for the worst
and Paul Martin is already being measured for his casket.

Could this be the new Leader and the new face of the Liberal party in Canada?A Harper win could rejuvenate Liberals

On the other hand it is rumoured that Mr. Dithers might hang around smelling up the party with his political corpse.

Tags
Posted by at No comments:

The War Monger

Former Conservative candidate and Canada's favorite Ex-General, now war monger, Lewis Mackenzie defended the indefensible this week. The war in Iraq. And he bitched about Canada not being involved.

Like much of the outcry around the Liberals use of military in their attack ads Mackenzie came out in defense of Harper. But he also defended the war monger apologist Liberal Leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff.(Ignatieff for Canada)

In a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star Mackenzie lies about the casualties in Iraq in order to justify the war. Not unlike that other war monger George W. Bush.

It's becoming increasingly frustrating to witness the gloating that too many Canadians are enjoying as a result of our non-official participation in the war and ongoing crisis in Iraq. In a less than complimentary association with Winston Churchill — at least for Churchill — our recently departed prime minister Jean Chrétien has even referred to his belated decision not to participate in the war as his, "finest hour."Support for the war's objectives has emerged in the current election campaign as a misguided weapon to unfairly defame such disparate candidates as Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Since the allied invasion in March of 2003 almost three years ago, 30,000 Iraqis have perished as a result of the war.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We have lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.
Several letter writers to the Star pointed out that his figures were as far off as King George's.

More Iraqis died after US invasion

Canada's position has been justified

The Lancet reported in 2004 that over 100,000 Iraqis died after the American occupation based on a study done by John Hopkins University Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Since War

And these are regularly available to viewers of Lou Dobbs on CNN. So why does Mackenzie use these numbers, well to justify the American occupation of course. Also see; Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

In attempting to defend the U.S. invasion and to denounce Canada's policy of not supporting the war, the quizzling Lewis does disservice to our military, and to Canadian society. War is always the last option, as any military leader worth their salt will tell you. It is diplomacy by other means, as Clausewitz said. And in the case of Iraq that diplomacy, the UN weapons inspections, was pre-empted by the US in their haste to march on Iraq, which was their intention all along even before invading Afghanistan.

Lewis has been out of the military so long, and a wannabe politico that he forgets whose lives are being put on the line in War. He is now the very essence of an armchair general. A real general would never have sent soldiers into Iraq based on the information failures that the US and Britan used to justify their invasion.

Now compare Lewis with his British Counterparts.

Impeach Blair on Iraq, says general

· PM misled public, says UN Bosnia commander
· Invasion 'a blunder of enormous significance'

A former general has called for impeachment proceedings against Tony Blair, accusing the prime minister of misleading parliament and the public over the invasion of Iraq.

General Sir Michael Rose, commander of UN forces in Bosnia in 1994, writes in today's Guardian: "The impeachment of Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest in the democratic process in this country once again". Britain was led into war on false pretences, he says. "It was a war that was to unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's prospects in the wider war against global terror."

General Sir Michael Walker, chief of defence staff, has said in public only that British military presence in Iraq was a "politically-charged issue" which has affected recruitment since people saw the armed forces as "guilty by association" with Mr Blair's decision to invade the country.

General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army, has criticised US tactics in Iraq. British commanders were told by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff at the time of the invasion, to deal with Iraqi officers and Ba'athists to help maintain law and order. That order was rescinded in May 2003 on the instructions of US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Comment
Enough of his excuses: Blair must be impeached over Iraq

 The only way parliament can regain the trust of disaffected voters is to admit that it was wrong to support the war

Michael Rose
Tuesday January 10, 2006
The Guardian

Wars are won when the people, government and army work together for a common cause in which they genuinely believe. Whereas the people may be initially uncertain about military intervention, politicians will often be the strongest advocates - blinded by the imperatives of their political views. It will invariably be military commanders who are most cautious about using force - for they understand better than most the consequences of engaging in war.

Although in a true democracy they must remain subordinate to their political masters, they have a clear responsibility to point out when political strategies are flawed or inadequately resourced. Since they might also have to ask their soldiers to sacrifice their lives, they must be assured that a war is just, legal and the last resort available. Yet three years ago this country was somehow led by the prime minister into war in Iraq where few, if any, of these requirements were met.

Most importantly a clear justification for the war in Iraq was never sufficiently made by Tony Blair - for the intelligence he presented was always embarrassingly patchy and inconsistent. What is more, his unequivocal statement to the House of Commons that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used within 45 minutes was made without being properly validated - for it was decided in Washington and London to launch the invasion of Iraq early, on the basis of the flimsy evidence available. This was done without asking the UN weapons inspectors, who were actually on the ground in Iraq, to investigate this allegation. Ultimately, as the inspectors suspected and as we now all know, it turned out that there were no such weapons. Britain had been led into war on false pretences. It was a war that was to unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's prospects in the wider war against global terror.


Tags
Posted by at No comments:

The War Against Women

Begins in the Womb-Cry Genocide

A study on female foeticide in India that has been published by renowned British medical journal, Lancet, states that since 1994, over 1 crore - 10 million - female foetuses have been aborted in the country.


India's 'girl deficit' deepest among educated

In 1994, India banned the use of technology to determine the sex of unborn children and the termination of pregnancies on the basis of gender.

However, research for the year 2001 showed that for every 1,000 male babies born in India, there were just 933 girls.

Leading campaigners say many of India's fertility clinics continue to offer a seemingly legitimate facade for a multi-billion pound racket and that gender determination is still big business in India.

The researchers said the "girl deficit" was more common among educated women but did not vary according to religion.

Experts in India say female foeticide is mostly linked to socio-economic factors.

It is an idea that many say carries over from the time India was a predominantly agrarian society where boys were considered an extra pair of hands on the farm.

The girl child has traditionally been considered inferior and a liability - a bride's dowry can cripple a poor family financially

India 'lost birth' study disputed BBC News

I have not seen a lot of bloggers covering this story. It appeared in the MSM one day and of course was gone the next, moving on to the next big story. The Lancet study was done by Doctors at the University of Toronto

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)67930-0

Low male-to-female sex ratio of children born in India: national survey of 1·1 million households

Prabhat Jha email address a Corresponding Author Information, Rajesh Kumar b, Priya Vasa a, Neeraj Dhingra a, Deva Thiruchelvam aRahim Moineddin a and

Summary

Background

Fewer girls than boys are born in India. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain this low sex ratio. Our aim was to ascertain the contribution of prenatal sex determination and selective abortion as measured by previous birth sex.

Methods

We analysed data obtained for the Special Fertility and Mortality Survey undertaken in 1998. Ever-married women living in 1·1 million households in 6671 nationally-representative units were asked questions about their fertility history and children born in 1997.

Findings

For the 133 738 births studied for 1997, the adjusted sex ratio for the second birth when the preceding child was a girl was 759 per 1000 males (99% CI 731–787). The adjusted sex ratio for the third child was 719 (675–762) if the previous two children were girls. By contrast, adjusted sex ratios for second or third births if the previous children were boys were about equal (1102 and 1176, respectively). Mothers with grade 10 or higher education had a significantly lower adjusted sex ratio (683, 610–756) than did illiterate mothers (869, 820–917). Stillbirths and neonatal deaths were more commonly male, and the numbers of stillbirths were fewer than the numbers of missing births, suggesting that female infanticide does not account for the difference.

Interpretation

Prenatal sex determination followed by selective abortion of female fetuses is the most plausible explanation for the low sex ratio at birth in India. Women most clearly at risk are those who already have one or two female children. Based on conservative assumptions, the practice accounts for about 0·5 million missing female births yearly, translating over the past 2 decades into the abortion of some 10 million female fetuses.

Affiliations

a Centre for Global Health Research, St Michael's Hospital, and Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
b School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Dr Prabhat Jha, Centre for Global Health Research, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 70 Richmond Street East, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1N8, Canada



The study proves Canadian born feminist theoritician Shulamith Firestone correct.

In her seminal work the Dialectic of Sex she said that as patriarchical society advances its bio-technology in medicine and reproduction (reproductive technology), women become more and more expendable. Girls are commodities in patriarchical society, ones that are valued or disposed of.

Now those on the right will immediately blame the access to abortion that women now have thanks to medical advances. And they will blame feminism;

'Gender' - a new dangerous ideology
Sunday - Catholic Weekly, Poland - 14 Dec 2005
... Shulamith Firestone in her book 'The Dialectic of Sex', published in 1970, modifying the idea of the class struggles, calls to sex-class revolution: 'In order ...

But the reality is that it is patriarchical society which values males as property owners, and devalues women and childern as property, that is the source of this war against women. A war conducted in the wombs of mothers. Not due to advances in abortion, those are ancient womens knoweldge since the dawn of time, but from the advances in the technology of the Ultrasound.

Now those who would use this information to condemn access to abortion would sound ridiculous if they demanded the end of the use of the ultrasound. So vital in the industrial world to the happiness of the middle class who get to see their children growing in moms womb. But in the newly industrialized world, with its cash value for males, this same middle class and upper class use the ultrasound for selective breeding. Abortion comes after.

This war is not isolated to India. It is a world wide phenomena. It is the reality of patriarchal 'family values'.

China faces future as land of boys 09/03/05
Editorial: Asia's Male Tilt 07/15/04






FEMALE FOETICIDE

Indians have terminated 10 million girl babies in the last 20 years. This shocking reality has been uncovered in a study done by medical journal Lancet, which also reveals that female foeticide is not a phenomenon restricted to rural India. The fact is corroborated by the 2001 census — 933 girls per 1000 boys. CNN-IBN uncovers India's age-old fascination with the boy child, which has skewed the census figures so.



Tags
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)