Banner Advertise

Sunday, April 6, 2008

[chottala.com] Century famous joke with famine striken Bangladeshi people

Our four star General has got extension for one more year for the interest of People of Bangladesh.
 
 
What can be better joke than this extension with the famine ridden  people of Bangladesh?
 
 
 May Allah releif us from these three Uddin jokers  (I, F AND M uddin).
 
All are sick, limit their time to give some releif to Bangladeshi people.


Is this CTG better than Ershad  in case of political party reform and anti corruption drive and dealings with teachers and Students ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sobhan Allah-  Only Allah flawless 
           Alhamdulillah - All praise to be of Allah 
                   Allah hu Akbar - Allah, the Greatest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would Be Mahathir of BD
 


You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] All for the interst of Public of Bangladesh

জনস্বার্থেই 

জনস্বার্থেই শেখ হাসিনা , খালেদা জিয়া , তারেক রহমানসহ সকল জনপ্রতিনিধির নিশর্ত মুক্তি চাই ।
 
।। ইত্তেফাক রিপোর্ট ।।
সেনাবাহিনী প্রধান জেনারেল মইন উ আহমেদের চাকরির মেয়াদ এক বছর বাড়লো। রাষ্ট্রপতি অধ্যাপক ড. ইয়াজউদ্দিন আহম্মেদ গতকাল রবিবার এ সম্পর্কিত প্রস্তাব অনুমোদন করেছেন। এরপর প্রতিরক্ষা মন্ত্রণালয় থেকে এ সম্পর্কিত আদেশ বা প্রজ্ঞাপন জারি করা হয়। আগামী ১৫ জুন থেকে এই আদেশ কার্যকর হবে। ওইদিনই তার চাকরির বর্তমান মেয়াদ শেষ হওয়ার কথা ছিল। মেয়াদ বৃদ্ধির ফলে ২০০৯ সালের ১৫ জুন পর্যন্ত তিনি সেনাপ্রধান পদে বহাল থাকবেন। জেনারেল মইন সেনাবাহিনী প্রধান হিসাবে ৩ বছরের জন্য দায়িত্ব নেন ২০০৫ সালের ১৫ জুন।
গতকাল আন্তঃবাহিনী জনসংযোগ (আইএসপিআর) পরিদপ্তরের এক সংবাদ বিজ্ঞপ্তিতে জানানো হয়, রাষ্ট্রপতির আদেশক্রমে পুনরাদেশ না দেয়া পর্যন্ত সেনাবাহিনী প্রধান জেনারেল মইন উ আহমেদ, এনডিসি, পিএসসি-এর নিয়োগের মেয়াদ জনস্বার্থে এক বছর বৃদ্ধি করা হয়েছে।
 
 


Is this CTG better than Ershad  in case of political party reform and anti corruption drive and dealings with teachers and Students ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sobhan Allah-  Only Allah flawless 
           Alhamdulillah - All praise to be of Allah 
                   Allah hu Akbar - Allah, the Greatest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would Be Mahathir of BD
 


You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Fwd: Health Rights Forum calls to stop privatisation of public hospitals



Health Right <healthrightbd@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Health Rights Forum calls to stop
privatisation of public hospitals
Staff Correspondent
Privatisation of public hospitals runs counter to the constitution which obliges the state to provide health care for all its citizens and which recognises healthcare as a right, Health Rights Forum leaders said.    This move is also not within the purview or mandate of the interim government, said the health rights organisation leaders at a news briefing in Dhaka on Saturday.
   The forum called on the government to stop the process of privatisation under the guise of giving them autonomy and introducing the provision for fees.
   They demanded revision of the health policy to provide modern healthcare facilities for people.
   Journalist Kamal Lohani read out a statement demanding investigation of corruption or irregularities in the projects, funded by international financial institutions.
   The statement criticised the government decision to accept the prescriptions of the lending agencies although it contradicted the constitution and despite the fact that there were imitable examples of government-run health care across the world.
   The statement also demanded that the government should take steps to revive and ensure better healthcare services in government hospitals and enact appropriate laws to ensure the accountability of private medical facilities.
   The Doctors for Health and Environment president, Rashid-E-Mahbub, Nitai Das of the Health Rights Movement and Save the Environment Movement convener Abu Naser Khan spoke at the briefing.
   Rashid said the government had begun to privatise public hospitals when it should have, instead, improved services in such places.
   Rashid also said only 10 to 15 per cent of the people now have access to government healthcare services and the hospital autonomy move will further reduce the number.
   Kamal said the move would not address the woes of the common people that there are not enough medicines, quality treatment or diagnosis facilities. It will, in fact, worsen the situation and impede people's access to health care, he said.
   The forum called on human rights activists, economists, intellectuals, doctors, health
   workers, cultural activists and media professionals to come forward to protect the public health sector and other public enterprises.



 


Syed Siful Alam Shovan
shovan1209@yahoo.com


You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Dis-incentives for small family - family planning policies from a different ligh

Dis-incentives for small family - family planning policies from a different light
There has been all kinds of opinions to analyze the reasons that are responsible for the relatively big sizes of the families and how to control it.

If you ask any of the consultants that comes from overseas to oversee different family planning projects - mostly funded by development partners, the first thing you will be told is that its the lack of education and recreation facilities that were primarily responsible for big families. There has been many research and studies, again done by mostly foreign funded projects, which conclude that these are indeed the reasons for having big families. With the lead from the western thought leaders, our local ones have lost the ability to think for themselves long back. (Off course, we are talking statistics here. There are indeed some forward thinkers who are doing excellent job so far. But they have been outnumbered by stupid ones, so far).

We beg to differ with that premise that its the lack of education that encourage couples to have more children. Believe me, its not. Its the lack of security that gives incentives to the couples to make more babies. Let us explain a little bit.

When it comes to security in life - both in social and personal life - we as a human being prefer to have the answers in certain terms. We like to make sure that our homes are secure. We like to make sure that we have food in our plates - now and specifically in old age. Also, we like to make sure that we have health care facilities when we are sick - now and specially in old age.

How to make sure this three major security concerns?

If there are law and order system in the society - we feel secure at home. When there is not enough security being provided by the social and state mechanism, people tend to have more sons - who still are a measure of strength in many rural areas. If somebody has five sons and the neighbor has five daughters, go ask them about their sense of security.

If there are pension scheme in place for old age support - every young couple would feel that they will have food in their plate during their old age when they will no longer be able to work. If that system is absent in large scale, you will find people trying to have make more babies in the hope that some of them (at least one of the children out of many) will be able to do it well economically so they can take care of their older parents. Believe me - it may sound weird to think that some young parents are having babies with a thought that someday the baby will feed them(!), but its true. For the same reason, they are happier if the kid is a boy since the boy stays with the parents, usually.

If there were health insurance scheme in place to take care of older citizens - the young couples would feel that they will have proper health care during their old age when they will no longer be able to work. If that system is absent in large scale, you wil find people trying to buy indirect health insurance by making babies - just like the same way they do to compensate for a pension scheme.

Now - what is the proof for these claims and if true, what should be done?

If we believe that the family size decisions are primarily related to economics and safety concerns, it has big implications for policy makers.

How about this?

Government can not make social security for all. But it can make a policy that it will start providing extra social security for those parents who have only one child. In other words, our system gives negative incentives for having small families. Government can try to turn that around and give positive incentives for having small families.

It can be started now without wasting any more time. Government can find out the older couples who did not have more than one child and provide a social security net. This project should be publicized well. We think if government does this - it can stop spending all those money that it spend in enlightening the people about family planning. There would not be any need for extra spending - just start the project by diverting some of the resources from family planning projects to news created projects to providing social safety net for older people with single or no children. You have to make sure that it is well publicized.

There will be many would question the logic. Just support the proposed projects in plain words. Those who had more children they had more chances to have security. While they increased their probability to have a secure life in older age, the also created extra burden for the state. So, those people who did not have much chance (since they did not have more children) and since they did not create extra burden and since the state do not have much resources right now, the state will start supporting the old people who had one child or no child. Makes sense?

Even if a pilot project like this one is taken in a single district, you will see the result within a very short time. Yes, you will see that within the year - if the pilot project is well publicized.

Bottomline: Identify peoples who have a very small size family (Start with one or no children. Depending on the size of the budget, it could be extended to more couples who had maximum two children and fulfill some income / asset criteria). Once a group of couples are identified, they will be provided with social safety net (food, residence and health, as needed basis). The budget will have to come from the promotional activities of the family planning projects. The idea is these new pilot project will act as a promotional item for the overall family planning programs. This proposal, if implemented properly, would attack the problem from demand side - instead of current approach of solving it from supply side. This would also be helpful for the incumbent governments since it would allow for the government to provide more direct support to the struggling portions of the population than before.


If you thought some of the ideas are worth of your reading time, please forward it to others. If you have an ear to the columinsts in regular traditional media, please forward it to them. If you have an ear to the journalists and news editors of the electronic media, discuss it with them. Hope they would look at the suggestions and give due diligence. 
 
Thanks for your time,
Innovation Line
 
==================================================================================================

Note: This is a freelance column, published mainly in different internet based forums. This column is open for contribution by the members of new generation, sometimes referred to as Gen 71. If you identify yourself as someone from that age-group and want to contribute to this column, please feel free to contact. Thanks to the group moderator for publishing the article.
 
Dear readers, also, if you thought the article was important enough so it should come under attention of the head of the government please forward the message to them. Email address for the Chief Advisor: feeedback@pmo.gov.bd_ or at http://www.cao.gov.bd/feedback/comments.php . The more of you forward it to them, the less will be the need to go back to street agitation. Use ICT to practice democracy. It is already proven that this government responds to the feedback.

Also forward it to:
Directorate General of Health Services
info@dghs.org.bd_

Directorate General of Family Planning
dgfp@dekko.net.bd_


Brac
research@brac.net_

Asa
asabd@dhaka.net_

==================================================================================================



__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Women's policy: What is the fuss about?

Sunday, April 6, 2008 06:33 PM GMT+06:00
WHY so much noise about a policy which does no more than reaffirm commitments of earlier documents? The protests by a few religious clerics surrounding the declaration of the policy by the chief advisor give rise to suspicions of political machinations. The responses of some members of the advisory council also suggest, at the least, a lack of cohesiveness or coordination in decision making by the Council of Advisors. These events have diverted us from considering the content of the policy and its continuity with previous state commitments, and from formulating an action plan.

Let us first dissect the protests, which started a few days before the announcement. How is it that the ulema were threatening street action, using the mosque to incite hatred against the government and against women, even before they had seen the policy? Their claim was that the policy provided for equal rights to inheritance, and thus violated religious norms and codes. The protests have continued even after the policy has been published and made available, and after it is quite clear that it makes no reference to inheritance laws!

Islam is a religion of peace. And yet the ulema are deliberately breaking the peace by use of vituperative language and seditious threats of "cvil war." An ever-ready madrassah brigade has been summoned into street action and, what is even more surprising, the Khatib of Baitul Mukaram mosque seems to have forgotten his official responsibilities. We are familiar with similar forms of destabilisation used in the past.

In 1961, for example, the ulema supported the right-wing parties in opposing the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. The government, at that time, took a strong stand against the trouble makers, and the law has remained on our statute books for four decades and is in daily use throughout the country, benefiting millions of men, women and children in the process. The uniformity of messages emanating from khutbas in certain mosques, their instigation to political rallies, and the op-eds in the right-wing media suggest considerable planning behind the scenes.

So, we need to figure out, is all this really about a rejection of a national commitment to gender equality? Is it really about any threat to religion or religious practice? Or is it something more calculated, and intended to serve the interests of certain groups -- is it merely a diversionary tactic from the political movement for the trial of war criminals, or just another way of mounting a further challenge to the present government?

We presume that the caretaker government follows some official procedures for collective decision making, and that, when the chief advisor announced the policy on March 8, it had already been discussed and approved by the council. Does this imply that the chief advisor has gone back on the previous decision taken collectively by the council. Or have the four advisors acted on their own initiative to visit the Islamic Foundation, offer apologies and set up a "review committee." What is the validity of any decisions taken by such a committee?

There is nothing new in the policy itself, and, in fact, these commitments had been made earlier in the Constitution, in CEDAW, in the Beijing Plan of Action, the MDG and NSRP. Let us examine what the policy says.

Section 1 of the policy reviews official decisions and commitments to women's equality.

Section 2 lists the purpose and aims of the policy to ensure equality, security, empowerment, human rights, to address poverty of women, recognise their economic and social contributions, facilitate participation in public decision making and access to education, health and skill development, and protection for vulnerable women. These aims have never been in dispute, and different ministries have been mandated since the early seventies to implement programs in accordance with them.

Section 3 reiterates implementation of CEDAW through review and reform of laws, prevention of misuse of laws or misinterpretation of religion contrary to women's interests, creation of awareness of rights, identification of children by both parents, including in voter identity cards. (It is unfortunate that the Election Commission has failed to observe this government rule, and women voters have been identified by their spouses.)

Sections 4 and 5 refer to legal and policy deterrents to violence against women.

Sections 7, 8, 12 and 13 refer to expanding access to education, health and shelter or housing, to creating opportunities for participation in sports and culture.

Section 9 recognises women's economic contribution, the need for expanding opportunities, and eliminating gender discrimination; it also refers to the need for safety nets and other facilities for working women. Political participation is to be facilitated through directly held elections to reserved seats in Parliament, and lateral entry of women in public services, diplomatic services, maintaining quotas in public employment. In acknowledging the government's responsibility for implementing the policy, section 17 reiterates provisions for monitoring mechanisms, which have already been in place.

The rightist frenzy is apparently over the right to property, which is referred to in section 9.13 as providing for "equal rights to and control over all moveable and immoveable property acquired through the market." This is a statement of the law as it stands in Bangladesh, and is not a re-statement of it or any advance! At least, that is true in theory. In practice, many women are deprived of their legal share in family property, and have little access to commercial loans, etc.

It is difficult to see the rationale for the objection to this section. And it is even more difficult to understand what drove the four advisors to go to the ulema if they had already read the policy and were aware of its provisions. Consultations on policy matters are a good precedent, but only when they are held in a rational atmosphere, and with constituencies that are to be directly affected by such policies. The National Policy for Women's Development is an outcome of a national consensus on the need to eliminate gender inequality and to ensure women's advancement so that they can contribute more effectively to economic and social development.

The government's energy should now be directed to work out time-lined action plans, and allocate budgetary support. Ministries need to be mandated with specific goals and targets, which can be monitored effectively. It is time that governments stand by their words and make sure that equality and non-discrimination are maintained as guidelines for laws, policies and programs of action. Bangladesh needs to move forward into thefuture. Let us not forget that women's labour today sustains the Bangladesh economy, women's social capital maintains family well being. Recognising their rights will be a step in furthering their effective contribution to society.



Hameeda Hossain is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.
__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Fw: [notun_bangladesh] John McCain



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Anis Rahman <anis90242@yahoo.com>
To: notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 7:10:10 PM
Subject: [notun_bangladesh] John McCain

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor
of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position
has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on
Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says
McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain
voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded
President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not
support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." 4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in
Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care
bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with
millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at
least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis
is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their
vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless
to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought
of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's
erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his
campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The
government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists
raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other
presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in
recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod
Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam,
which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political
support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane
Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic
Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes,
zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10




You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. __._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___