Pregnant women in England will be entitled to a £200 lump sum to
spend on healthy food, in government plans to be announced on Wednesday.
From April 2009, expectant mums could have the benefit paid in the 29th week of their pregnancy.
The grant is intended to reduce infant mortality and close the health inequality gap between richer and poorer families.
Women
must have a health and welfare session with a professional to claim the
money - but they don't have to prove the money is actually spent on
nutritious food.
If most critical development is in the early stages, is paying this money at the end too late to really benefit the baby? Will it actually close the gap between rich and poor families? Does it cost much more to eat healthily? Will it change women's eating habits?
related article on the issue will be published on the 12th Sept. 07 (wed) in Gadgit
uk pregnancy society culture capitalism socialism news poverty sociology left current affairs singapore malaysia india hong kong philippines usa venezuela
related article : Thank God for the Royal Family - the great social experiment
code for the above poll for YOUR blog:
LARGE
<!-- Altering or removing this link is a breach of the Vizu Terms and Conditions --><div style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:10px;height:20px;text-align:center;width:320px;margin:0;padding:0;"><a href="http://www.vizu.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#999;text-decoration:underline;font-size:10px;">Opinion Polls</span></a><span style="color:#999;"> & </span><a href="http://answers.vizu.com/market-research.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color:#999;text-decoration:underline;font-size:10px;">Market Research</span></a></div><embed src="http://wp.vizu.com/vizu_poll.swf" quality="high" scale="noscale" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="320" height="354" name="vizu_poll" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" FlashVars="js=false&pid=41568&ad=false&vizu=true&links=true&mainBG=000000&questionText=
FFFFFF&answerZoneBG=EEEEEE&answerItemBG=FFFFFF&answerText=
000000&voteBG=C8C8C8&voteText=000000"></embed>
NARROW (for sidebar)
<!-- Altering or removing this link is a breach of the Vizu Terms and Conditions --><div style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:10px;height:20px;text-align:center;width:160px;margin:0;padding:0;"><a href="http://www.vizu.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#999;text-decoration:underline;font-size:10px;">Opinion Polls</span></a><span style="color:#999;"> & </span><a href="http://answers.vizu.com/market-research.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color:#999;text-decoration:underline;font-size:10px;">Market Research</span></a></div><embed src="http://wp.vizu.com/vizu_poll.swf" quality="high" scale="noscale" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="160" height="470" name="vizu_poll" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" FlashVars="js=false&pid=41568&ad=false&vizu=true&links=true&mainBG=000000&questionText=
FFFFFF&answerZoneBG=EEEEEE&answerItemBG=FFFFFF&answerText=000000&voteBG=
C8C8C8&voteText=000000"></embed>
royalty royal family class capitalism socialism philosophy politics inequality psychology sociology history left anarchism uk malaysia india poverty hong kong monaco thailand
Will court ruling mean the end of Guantanamo?
The tribunals of two men held at have collapsed. What will this mean for US efforts to try foreign terror suspects?
Charges were dropped against Omar Khadr and Salim Ahmed Hamdan because authorities
failed to classify them as 'unlawful enemy combatants.'
Many of Guantanamo's
other detainees may also be ineligible for tribunal.
The camp has been criticised for holding suspects without charge and alleged
cruel treatment, but the
says it is a vital tool in the "war on terror".
What is your reaction to the collapse of the tribunals? How should
governments deal with terror suspects? Should the camp be shut down or does it
help prevent terrorism?
From BBC’s ‘Have Your Say’
BBC article: Pair’s Charges Dropped
terrorism usa afghanistan bbc news iran iraq uk guantanamo human rights politics
“Should Harry be sent to Iraq?
(please post your opinions on this in either the comments section here or at your own site.)
"Should Prince Harry be allowed to serve in Iraq?
The Ministry of Defence has announced that Prince Harry will now not be going to Iraq.Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt said he has discovered a number of threats relating directly to Harry and those around him.
Prince Harry is said to be "very disappointed" but will not quit the
army, according to a statement from Clarence
House."
uk terrorism iraq united kingdom news bbc politics qotw society
“Should Politics Mix with Sport? Are Australia right to pull out of Zimbabwe Cricket?
(please post your opinions on this in either the comments section here or at your own site.)
How should the international community treat ?
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has ordered the country's cricket team to pull out of a planned tour of Zimbabwe later this year.
He said the tour would be an "enormous propaganda boost" to Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe.
The Australian team was due to play three one-day internationals in Zimbabwe in September.
This news follows an announcement last week that Zimbabwe has been elected to head the UN's commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) despite strong objections from Western diplomats.
Should politics
be mixed with sport? What will Australia pulling out of the Zimbabwe
cricket tour achieve? Do you agree with this decision?
from BBC's 'Have Your Say'
australia zimbabwe sports cricket uk usa india pakistan new zealand
We are all interconnected in more ways that our conscious minds appreciate. In empathising with 'others', we will be afforded knowledge and insight into phenomena that has frequently been ignored or given little credence simply because ‘it is not our problem’. However, the consideration of these events or ‘others interests’ will lead to the enrichment of our arsenal of perspectives which, we will discover, may be applied to solve our own individual/local/national problems. Thus is The Value of Empathy.
Whilst Qotds focus us on our own individual concerns, and whilst they hold much
value in causing us to reflect on our own individual lives and consider it from
the perspective of other’s answering the same Qotds, going one step further and
paying attention to others' experiences or global events afford us perspectives
that we may apply in our own ‘local’ lives whilst sending a clear signal to
those who ‘divide and rule’ that they will have to contend with the opinion of a
global mass as opposed to a national
one.
Considering the QOTW and reading others' thoughts on it is one of the many
small but significant steps we might take towards realising the reality of our
global citizenship - which may not be so in Law, but which is most surely the case in Fact. Our practice of nation and self-transcending Empathy via, amongst
others, the consideration of the QOTW, is that which makes our empathy
insightful and, as a consequence, effective. It is our deficiency in
Knowledge, Perspective and Empathy that founds the basis for much of
the evils we are currently assailed by. To abdicate the responsibility to strengthen these is to relinquish the future. We are all interconnected, and our
individual nations are little more than nodes on a World Wide Web of Humanity.
Thus, the start of QOTWs - Question of the Week.
ed-infinitum ~ cosmopolitan
p.s. Please submit your QOTW via the email 'submit' link on the right (under 'signpost')
qotw globalisation globalization activism qotd environmentalism politics psychology sociology culture society news war nationalism uk usa asia africa south america europe
on Poll of the Week - Jobs for the Royal Family?