When Birth is not a Business, Women get Massacred

by Anatoly Miranovsy
Pravda.ru
October 21, 2011

The whole world was shocked by the tragedy of a little girl from China. The two-year-old girl was run over by a van and then by a truck. The shocking video footage showed the drivers leaving from the site of the incident. Passers-by did not pay any attention to the bleeding child either. In China, rescuing a child will cost its savior big money – he or she will have to pay 50% of medical costs.

The graphic surveillance video of the incident in Foshan city, Guandong province, shows the girl run over by a van, which then drives off leaving her bleeding on a narrow street. More than a dozen people walk or drive past the critically injured girl, named Yueyue, without going to her aid before she is run over by a second truck, the Daily Mail wrote.

Eighteen people witnessed the horrific tragedy, but only one woman dragged the child away from the road. The girl’s mother was not watching the child – she was busy on a market.

The girl was delivered to the hospital, where she elapsed into a coma and then died. The two drivers, who killed the child, were arrested only after the horrific video footage was posted on the Internet.

Chinese bloggers called this incident “the shame of the Chinese people.” However, there is more hypocrisy than shame in these words. The incident looks horrific and blood-chilling for European people, who live in more or less well-to-do countries. Killing a child in China is a common event.

In China, they break the spines of newborns, they bury them alive, strangle and poison them, or just starve them to death. All of that mostly happens to girls, because the birth of a baby girl in China is economically unprofitable.

Girls have to have dowries, so a family has to work hard for it for years. The pension system in China is meant for a narrow circle of state clerks. Elderly Chinese parents are supported by their sons. Hideous crimes committed against little helpless kids happen all across China, not just in remote rural areas. Beijing garbagemen often find dead bodies of little children in stinky wastes. Sometimes they are still alive…

There are 118 boys per 100 registered girls in China, whereas the biological norm is 104-106 boys and 100 girls. To put it in a nutshell, they destroy one-seventh of Chinese girls. The girls are killed by their own parents. “One family – one child” policy gives an incentive to it as well.

This problem exists among Asian immigrants in Europe. The Council of Europe even discussed an opportunity to ban the process of gender identification for children. This process became the main reason for so-called selective abortions.

Therefore, the people, who simply passed the little girl by and paid no attention to the dying child, acted “normally” for China. Most likely, they simply thought that the girl’s parents decided to kill the girl.

The main problem of many Asian countries is overpopulation. The value of human life falls lower than the lives of certain animal species. Moreover, if a person volunteers to save someone, the savior will have to cover 50 percent of medical expenses of the saved individual.

The driver of the van said that the girl’s death cost him $1,500. However, if she had survived, he would have paid a tenfold of that amount.

As a result of such policies, the number of young men in China and India exceeds the number of young women by over ten percent. The number of Chinese men under 20 years of age exceeds the number of young women by over 30 million people. By this state of things one shall assume that lonely Chinese men will soon have to love each other.

Human hater John P. Holdren Wants to Swindle you, again

The United States’ Science Czar and fervent Eugenicist, John P. Holdren expressed his desire to swindle people into believing humans are the cause of all disasters.  He co-authored a book stating that forced abortions and mass sterilization are needed to save the planet.

Fox News

From the administration that brought you “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation,” another terminology change is in the pipeline.

The White House wants the public to start using the term “global climate disruption” in place of “global warming” — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

White House science adviser John Holdren urged people to start using the phrase during a speech last week in Oslo, echoing a plea he made three years earlier. Holdren said global warming is a “dangerous misnomer” for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.

The call comes as Congress prepares to adjourn for the season without completing work on a stalled climate bill. The term global warming has long been criticized as inaccurate, and the new push could be an attempt to re-shape climate messaging for next year’s legislative session.

“They’re trying to come up with more politically palatable ways to sell some of this stuff,” said Republican pollster Adam Geller, noting that Democrats also rolled out a new logo and now refer to the Bush tax cuts as “middle-class tax cuts.”

He said the climate change change-up likely derives from flagging public support for their bill to regulate emissions. He said the term “global warming” makes the cause easy to ridicule whenever there’s a snowstorm.

“Every time we’re digging our cars out — what global warming?” he said. “(Global climate disruption is) more of a sort of generic blanket term, I guess, that can apply in all weather conditions.”

It’s unclear why Holdren prefers “global climate disruption” over “climate change,” the most commonly used alternative to “global warming.”

Asked about the speech, Holdren spokesman Rick Weiss said only that the Office of Science and Technology Policy has been transparent about Holdren’s remarks.

“The PowerPoint for Dr. Holdren’s Oslo presentation has been public on our website since the day after he returned,” he said.

Click here to see the presentation.

In a 2007 presentation, Holdren suggested a similar phrase change — “global climatic disruption.”

The explanation he gave last week was that the impact from greenhouse gas emissions covers a broad “disruption” of climate patterns ranging from precipitation to storms to hot and cold temperatures. Those changes, he said, affect the availability of water, productivity of farms, spread of disease and other factors.

He’s not the first scientist to publicly veer away from “global warming.” NASA published an analysis on its website in 2008 explaining that it avoids the term because temperature change “isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate.”

“Changes to precipitation patterns and sea levels are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone,” the report said.

But Republicans predicted that re-branding the issue would have limited effect on the legislative effort. GOP strategist Pete Snyder said he doubts the term is going to change hearts and minds.

“Are they going to change the name of weathermen to disruption analysts?” he quipped. GOP lawmakers already exploited a terminology change of their own by re-branding the “cap-and-trade” bill as “cap-and-tax.”

Holdren’s “global climate disruption” isn’t the most convoluted term to grace the climate debate, however.

According to the NASA article, early studies on the impact humans had on global climate referred to the relationship as “inadvertent climate modification.”