Israel is guiilty of the crimes Netanyahu accuses of Hamas.
They called for destruction of Israel;you are calling for the destruction of them,which as you have rightly called as’war crime-incitement to genocide’
They fired against civilians so are you firing at civilians.
They hide behind civilians, you attack civilians frontally.
They are keeping one solddier of yours;how many of them are you holding?
What sort of maturity is this?
Netanyahu is clear in that is Israel is a Jewish state but he will not concede that it was Palestine’s before and does not seem to remember the present Israel was carved out of Palestine after Britain washed its hands off the mess it created.Basing on Mythology and playing on the guilty conscience of Europe,Israel skilfully played on the Holocaust and deprived Palestinians of their homeland, forgetting Israel was a usurper.Now that Palestine has recognised Israel,why do not you recognise them?Typical argumentative Jewish statement
‘They say they’ve recognized Israel, but now they are being asked to recognize it as a Jewish state.(question)
That’s right(Netanyahu.)’
You usurp a Nation and then call it bi national?
Plaestinian refugee problem-Israel is concerned?Who has created it?
If Palestininians should go only to Palestine,the all Jews must be only in Israel.
When the whole world is trying to become one ,at least in communication,and allowing people of other Nations to settle in there, where is Netanyahu living?
This sort of bigotry inflames passions and alienates Jews in the world, which had been feeling sorry for them because of Holocaust.If you practice what Hitler has done to Jews, against Palestinians, you shall lose world’s sympathy.
You may not know that non Palentinians and Non Arabis feel strongly aginst Israel’s recalcitrant behavior.
Israel’s asset has been its suffering;now its liability is its arrogance and insensitivity to people who are suffering the same fate,which is of Israel’s making.
Be sensible.Live and let live.Harping on old sufferings shall not lead any where.
You want Iran problem solved?
Stop your illegal settlements,maintain status quo.Accept the fact there have been excesses from Israel
Do not pretend Israel has no Nuclear device.
Story:
WEYMOUTH: What did you think of the Goldstone report?
NETANYAHU: I thought there were limits to hypocrisy, but I was obviously wrong. The so-called human-rights commission accuses Israel—which legitimately defended itself against Hamas—of war crimes. Mind you, Hamas didn’t commit just one type of war crime. It committed four. First, they called for the destruction of Israel, which under the U.N. charter is considered a war crime—incitement to genocide; secondly, they fired deliberately on civilians; third, they hid behind civilians; and fourth, they’ve been holding our captured soldier Gilad Shalit, without access to the Red Cross, for three years. And who gets accused of criminal behavior at the end of the day?
Tag: bloglines
-
Israel-Guilty.
-
UN inspectors inspecting Iran’s Nuclear facilities.
Yes.Iran has Nuclear capabilities on the sly as well.So, what are you going to do about it?
Do a North Korea?
Story.
TEHRAN, Iran — A team of U.N. inspectors prepared Sunday for their first look inside a formerly secret — though still unfinished — uranium enrichment facility that has raised Western suspicions about the extent of Iran’s nuclear program. The inspection tour will provide the world’s first independent details of the heavily protected site, carved into a mountainside near the holy city of Qom south of Tehran. It also coincides with the countdown to Iran’s expected decision on whether to accept a U.N.-brokered plan to process its nuclear fuel abroad.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9BI26K81 -
What Equality Women Want?
Happiness is subjective, relative and keeps on changing along with the growth of the individual and change of life style.It is by no means Absolute.Hence efforts to measure and quantify Happiness is absurd, not with standing Psychologists’ objections,as Happiness can not be defined.
Having said that what exactly women want?
They want lower insurance premiums?;do not want to maintain home?
In the case of the former, because of the fact Nature has made them differently, they have unique functions,like pregnancy and delivery as well as the complications that may arise out of it.Fortunately or unfortunately Men are not endowed by Nature thus in this regard.Insurance companies collect more premium because of cost ot flow and not because of gender discrimination.Conversely do you expect Men to pay higher premium on par with Women because only then Gender equality is ensured?At this rate ,you might even demand Men deliver babies!On taking care of Home,it is purely personal and optional;if you do not want to do it,don’t;if your spouse objects to it, better leave him to assert equality.
Coming to wages, how many women are paid equally or more than Men in MNCs.?In factan Indian Lady was Pepsi CEO.
Women have gone to space, been Prime Ministers and in fact India is controlled right now by a lady.
Recognition and monetary rewards are related to performance and not gender,especially in Business and politics.
People keep on harping equality.What exactly is needed?Obviously men can not deliver babies nor can they feed them. Short of this men will do every thing they can and are doing and shall do so.
Please be clear about what you want;individual maladjustments can not be made a social issue.
All said and done life is about getting along with people and in the process one may have to compromise,no gender, for Life is nothing but full of compromises.
You never realise and enjoy happiness when you have it and you keep on chasing mirages.In life, expect less, especially of relationships, and give more-that is the secret of Happiness.
Story:
When We’re Equal, We’ll Be Happy
Barbara Ehrenreich is now the latest to weigh in on the Female Happiness Conundrum — the whole cultural brouhaha caused by the news from Wharton School professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers earlier this year that despite all the objective improvements to their lives over the past four decades, women today appear to be less happy than they were in 1972.It’s been a hot-button issue, this most recent iteration of Freud’s too-often-repeated question about what women want. The whole declining happiness thing has been spun into an indictment of feminism (the “triumphant: I told you so” as Ehrenreich puts it), sparking an angry response that those who claim women are unhappy post-feminism are nothing more than agents of an anti-woman backlash.
That accusation is often correct. But not necessarily in Stevenson and Wolfers’s case.
Wolfers defended himself in The New York Times’ Freakonomics blog last week, arguing that his and Stevenson’s study isn’t the only one to show declining female happiness since the 1970s. He and Stevenson further admit, in the course of their paper, that their numbers really don’t tell us anything clear about why women now report being more unhappy, only that they do. And whether that increased reporting of lesser happiness actually corresponds to a decline in lived happiness is another question that Stevenson and Wolfers are very open in admitting they can’t answer.
I appreciate this. I tend to have a problem with studies that measure nebulous emotional states and then compare them back to other nebulous states experienced at different moments in time. You learn a lot from them about how people answer surveys, but not so much about how they objectively felt. Happiness, after all, is hard to quantify; you can’t measure it in a blood test, or map it in a mathematical equation corresponding to patterns of neuronal activity in the brain. It also tends to be relative; we judge our happiness, at least in part, against our expectations of how we are supposed to feel and how good we think life is supposed to be.
These inner “supposed”s may well have changed for women since the early 1970s, as Stevenson and Wolfers more or less say, in fancier language. They suggest that the opening up, diversifying and expanding of women’s sphere of existence may have given them more things to potentially be unhappy about: “… the increased opportunities available to women may have increased what women require to declare themselves happy.” Entering the world of men may very well have raised the bar of expectations: “If happiness is assessed relative to outcomes for one’s reference group,” they write, “then greater equality may have led more women to compare their outcomes to those of the men around them. In turn, women might find their relative position lower than when their reference group included only women.”
In other words: if you expect less for yourself, you’re easier to please.
The early 1970s was a limiting time for women, but it was also, perhaps, a hopeful time. There was definitely a feeling in the air that women’s lives were changing in a positive way. There was a sense that everything was possible, that life for women was getting better, that if things hadn’t yet come together as well as they should have, they inevitably would. Down the line. Like, today.
Life for women has not come together. That, at least, is the very clear conclusion you have to draw after reading the essays contained in “A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything,” a book-length report released this week by the Center for American Progress. Despite its cheery-sounding title, the report conveys a bleak portrait of women’s non-progress in our day. The wage gap persists, particularly for mothers, who now earn 73 cents for every man’s dollar. Our workforce and education system is still sex-segregated, operating along generations-old stereotypes that steer most women into low-paid, low-status, low-security professions. Women pay more for health insurance than men, have more extensive health needs than men, and suffer unique forms of discrimination in their coverage. (Women may be denied coverage because they had a Caesarean delivery or were victims of domestic violence — both “preexisting conditions.”) Regardless of the number of hours they work, they continue to do far more caretaking and housekeeping work at home than do their husbands. And discrimination against mothers (but not fathers) in the workplace is all but ubiquitous.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/when-were-equal-well-be-happy/?apage=3#comments
-
15 Horrifying Reasons to Never Let Anyone You Love Near a McDonald’s.
No Comments.
Story.
The Golden Arches: the ultimate American icon. Super Size Me taught us that fast food culture brings obesity, heart disease, hypertension and a whole slew of other problems. How bad do you really want that Big Mac? Here are 15 reasons you’ll never let anyone you love get near those Golden Arches.1. Real food is perishable. With time, it begins to decay. It’s a natural process, it just happens. Beef will rot, bread will mold. But what about a McDonald’s burger? Karen Hanrahan saved a McDonald’s burger from 1996 and, oddly enough, it looks just as “appetizing” and “fresh” as a burger you might buy today. Is this real food?
2. You would have to walk 7 hours straight to burn off a Super Sized Coke, fries and Big Mac. Even indulging in fast food as an occasional treat is a recipe for weight gain…unless you’re planning to hit each treadmill in the treadmill bay afterwards.
3. Containing less fat, salt and sugar, your pet’s food may be healthier than what they serve at McDonald’s.
4. In 2007, the employees of an Orlando-area McDonald’s were caught on camera pouring milk into the milkshake machine out of a bucket labeled “Soiled Towels Only.” That particular restaurant had already been cited for 12 different sanitary violations. Though McDonald’s proudly stands by its safety standards, and not every restaurant has such notorious incidents, the setting of a fast food restaurant staffed with low-paid employees at a high turnover rate arguably encourages bending the rules. (McDonald’s isn’t alone in this, of course – Burger King is actually ranked as the dirtiest of all the fast food chains.)
5. McDonald’s supports the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Much of the soy-based animal feed used to fatten fast-food chickens is grown in the Amazon. Are those chicken nuggets really worth acres of irreplaceable trees? (Especially considering how important carbon sinks like the rainforest are to halt global warming!) Fast food supports a completely unsustainable system of agriculture. It’s cruel to animals, unhealthy for humans, and bad for the planet.
6. Even Prince Charles, while touring a diabetes center in the United Arab Emirates, commented that banning McDonald’s is key to health and nutrition. Don’t let the salads and chicken breasts fool you. The “chicken” at McDonald’s, by the way, comes with a whole lot more than chicken.
7. As if feeding children high-fat, high-sodium, low-nutrition “food” weren’t bad enough, some Happy Meals in 2006 contained toy Hummers. It’s as if McDonald’s was encouraging a whole generation of kids not only to guzzle food, but to guzzle gas as well. Would you like a few barrels of petroleum with that?
8. The processed fat in McDonald’s food (and other fast food) promotes endothelial dysfunction for up to 5 hours after eating the meal. Endothelial tissue is what lines the inside of blood vessels.
9. For those who enjoy sex, take note: erectile dysfunction is connected to endothelial dysfunction. Morgan Spurlock of Super Size Me commented that his normally healthy sexual function deteriorated in just one month when he ate only food from McDonald’s. Even his girlfriend commented on camera that “he’s having a hard time, you know, getting it up.”
10. How many cows does it take to keep the world loaded with Big Macs? I had to do a some research and a little math, but according to a brief video inside one of McDonald’s 6 meat processing plants, about 500,000 pounds of beef is processed per day, per plant. If an average beef cow weighs 1,150 pounds, that means 2609 cows a day are turned into burgers. That’s 952,285 cows per year. And that’s just in the United States. Eating a hamburger may not be worse than driving a Hummer, but it’s bad. One hamburger patty does not necessarily come from one cow. Think about that. You’re eating bits of hundreds of cows.
11. Maybe you just pop in for an inexpensive latte. Watch out for the caramel syrup (Sugar, water, fructose, natural (plant source) and artificial flavor, salt, caramel color (with sulfites), potassium sorbate (preservative), citric acid, malic acid) or the chocolate drizzle (Corn syrup, water, hydrogenated coconut oil, high fructose corn syrup, glycerin, nonfat milk, cocoa, cocoa (processed with alkali), food starch-modified, disodium phosphate, potassium sorbate (preservative), xanthan gum, artificial flavor (vanillin), salt, soy lecithin). Please don’t put that stuff into your body. Eat healthy cheap food instead – you can be well and still save cash.
12. Are you a vegetarian with a French fry craving? You better skip McDonald’s because their fries actually contain milk (and wheat) and though they’re fried in vegetable oil, the oil is flavored with beef extract. (McDonald’s famously misled customers for years.)
13. Do you want high blood pressure? Hit the drive-through. Eating a McDonald’s chicken sandwich (any of “˜em, take your pick) will give you about 2/3 of the recommended daily amount of sodium. And if you actually do have high blood pressure, that’s way more than you really need.
14. Finally unveiled: the secret of the Big Mac’s “secret sauce.”
Soybean oil, pickle relish [diced pickles, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, vinegar, corn syrup, salt, calcium chloride, xanthan gum, potassium sorbate (preservative), spice extractives, polysorbate 80], distilled vinegar, water, egg yolks, high fructose corn syrup, onion powder, mustard seed, salt, spices, propylene glycol alginate, sodium benzoate (preservative), mustard bran, sugar, garlic powder, vegetable protein (hydrolyzed corn, soy and wheat), caramel color, extractives of paprika, soy lecithin, turmeric (color), calcium disodium EDTA (protect flavor).
Yum. Cheap oil and cheap syrup. Many people depend upon cheap food such as the sort offered at McDonald’s, whether due to the economic conditions we currently face or low incomes. So shouldn’t we be examining regulations that subsidize corn syrup but consider fruits and vegetables – the building blocks of a healthy body and green planet – to be “speciality” crops? Shouldn’t we be promoting urban gardening, community gardens and spreading information about low-cost farmers’ markets and CSAs? And focusing on the abundant choices of cheap food that are tasty and green?
15. Still not convinced? Maybe this 1970s trip through McDonaldland will give you enough nightmares to keep your loved ones away forever.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141959/15_horrifying_reasons_to_never_let_anyone_you_love_near_a_mcdonald’s/?page=entire -
Nick Griffin uses BBC appearance to attack Muslims and gays.
One need not agree with Mr.Griffin;but certain points are to be noted.
The language he used ,may be incorrect.
1.Islam is not only incompatible with British Society of today,but of most societies in the world of today as well.Many of us are scared to voice this opinion because it does not seem to be the right thing to say.
2.Homosexuals are definitely an aberration;accept it;they are abnormal and sick;do not justify them,but treat them.
His remarks on coloreds are not appropriate.
If people were to retaliate they can say that ,in fact Britain was colonising the world till yesterday.May be, sins of fathers are visiting sons!
More over, Britain today depends on coloreds for their survival, Brown in paritcular.If they decide to leave,you shall be in a bleak island, a US surrogate.
3.His remarks on Holocaust is totally abhorrent.Totally inhumane.
4.However ,BBC has done a good job of interviewing him.Democracy is all about discussion and clarification and no gagging.Story:
Mr Griffin said Islam was not compatible with life in Britain, while describing homosexuals as “creepy”.
The remarks provoked indignation from other members of the BBC panel and hostile parts of the audience, some of whom booed, calling him “a disgrace”.The BNP leader could not explain why he had previously sought to play down the Holocaust and defended his use of Sir Winston Churchill on BNP literature on the basis that his father had fought in the Second World War.
He claimed that Churchill would have been a member of the BNP and was “Islamaphobic” by “today’s standard”.
Asked whether he denied that millions of Jews and other minorities had been killed by the Nazis, Mr Griffin would only reply: “I do not have a conviction for Holocaust denial.”
He was then chastised by David Dimbleby, the host of the programme, for smiling.
The controversial statements were made in response to intense questioning by members of the audience from ethnic minorities.
BBC Television Centre in west London came under siege as filming took place, with MPs joining hundreds of protesters behind lines of police. There were six arrests as dozens of protesters attempted to storm the studio.
BBC studios in Hull, Scotland and Wales were also targeted by demonstrators. The cost of the police operation was estimated to be more than £100,000.
The BBC was certain to be questioned over why it allowed Mr Griffin to air such controversial views but executives were hoping that the intensive questioning that he faced would justify their decision to invite him on the Question Time panel for the first time.
The BBC, which Mr Griffin denounced on the programme as “ultra-Leftist”, had claimed that impartiality rules meant that it had little choice but to invite him on to the programme after the BNP won seats in the European Parliament in elections earlier this year.
He was joined on the panel by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, Baroness Warsi, the Tory spokesman on community cohesion, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, and Bonnie Greer, a black American playwright.
Mr Griffin was seated next to Miss Greer.
One of the most controversial moments came when Mr Dimbleby asked the BNP leader why he had been pictured with David Duke, the former leader of the Klan. Mr Griffin claimed that parts of the racist group, officially classed as a “hate organisation” in America, were “non-violent”.
However, he insisted: “I’m not a Nazi and never have been.”
He claimed that he was “the most loathed man in Britain” among British fascists.
He was questioned over his views on Islam and said it had “good points” but “does not fit in with the fundamental values of British society”. He was also attacked for describing white Britons as the “indigenous” population who faced “genocide”. We are the Aborigines here, he said.
Amid angry scenes, one Asian member of the audience asked Mr Griffin where he would like him to be sent and then suggested that he himself might find the South Pole a good destination because it was “a colourless landscape”.
Mr Griffin boasted to BNP supporters before the programme that he was “relishing” the prospect of “political blood sport”. “I will, no doubt, be interrupted, shouted down, slandered, put on the spot, and subjected to a scrutiny that would be a thousand times more intense than anything directed at other panellists,” he said. “It will, in other words, be political blood sport. But I am relishing this opportunity.”
Speaking after filming had finished, Mr Griffin claimed that he had been able to “land some punches”.
About one million people voted for the BNP at the European elections, leading to Mr Griffin taking up one of its two seats in the European Parliament. As a result, BBC executives said strict impartiality rules effectively forced them to include the party in Question Time.
Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, said the Government should ban the BNP if it felt that Mr Griffin should not have been allowed to take part in the broadcast.
“If there is a case for censorship, it should be debated and decided in Parliament,” he said. “Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else.”
He said the BNP had “demonstrated a level of support that would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time”.
Politicians from minor parties, including George Galloway, the Respect MP, and Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green party, regularly appeared on Question Time.
Mr Thompson insisted that Mr Griffin had been invited so that the public could challenge his views, rather than any “misguided desire to be controversial”.
Speaking before the programme, Gordon Brown said the BNP’s appearance was a matter for the BBC and that he was confident that Mr Griffin would be exposed for his “unacceptable” views.
“I hope that the exposure of the BNP will make people see what they are really like,” the Prime Minister said.
However, there were fears that Mr Griffin’s appearance would lead to an increase in support.
He had said he was hopeful his party would be propelled into “the big time” as a result of the broadcast and described his appearance on the show as “a milestone in the indomitable march of the British National Party towards saving our country”.
Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and the chairman of Unite Against Fascism, claimed that the broadcast could lead to an increase in racist attacks and views.
“For the angry racist it’s a trigger that turns into an attack,” he said.
“We first saw this when Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech. There was a huge surge of attacks on black conductors on our buses, and that is why I think you apply a different standard to the BNP to those parties that do not legitimise this sort of violence against minorities.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6410764/BNP-on-Question-Time-Nick-Griffin-uses-BBC-appearance-to-attack-Muslims-and-gays.html#
You must be logged in to post a comment.