Article & Journal Resources

Steve Rosenbloom
December 11, 2007

Maybe someone can help me out here, because I'm confused.

First, Bears coach Lovie Smith said Kyle Orton will start against the Vikings on Monday night. OK. Fine. What little playoff hopes the Bears held were pretty much done last Thursday, and it makes sense to see what they have at the most important position on the field with Rex Grossman likely done for the year and Brian Griese proving to be a backup, period.

But then, Smith said he's not in an evaluation period. No, he said he's just trying to win a football game, or some such coach-speak, and Orton gives them the best chance to win.

A guy who hasn't played all season gives the Bears the best chance to win? And in maybe the loudest dome in the NFL? Excuse me?

Griese might be no better than a backup, but he has won games this season and has done it under hostile circumstances.

But wait. There's more. When asked why it was Orton over Griese, Smith said, "It's time to see exactly what Kyle can do." That sounds like an evaluation period to me. It sounds like the Bears are doing the right thing and saying the wrong thing.

Maybe the head coach can't admit that it's over. But it's over. And the right thing to do when it's over is to use games as a way of figuring out what you have, not just at quarterback but at all positions.

I would hope that all of what passes for a Bears playbook is available for Orton. There's no reason to play it safe the way they did when Orton managed a running game and a had a great defense help him out two seasons ago. If you're going to see what Orton can do, then let him try to do all the things you expect to get out of your offense.

And they ought to use the rest of the season to see what players such as Mike Hass can do at wideout, what Josh Beekman can do on the offensive line and what Jamar Williams can do at linebacker. I'd play Devin Hester as much as I could at wideout too. If the Bears are going to commit to making him a bigger part of the offense, commit now.

And can we please see an end to Brian Urlacher's and Tommie Harris' seasons? This year doesn't matter anymore, but those players matter a lot next year and after that. The sooner they can start getting healthy, the better the chance the Bears can avoid putting us through this next season.

-----------

ON THE INTERNET

*Read the Rosenblog during the workweek at chicagosports.com/rosenblog

32 minutes ago

OTTAWA - The federal government is being urged to draft a new citizenship act rather than implement patchwork reforms to the "archaic" legislation now on the books.

Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi and Don Chapman, who represents many so-called "lost Canadians," say Tory government proposals to amend the Citizenship Act are admirable but fall short.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Diane Finley has said proposed legislation tabled Monday will deal with 95 per cent of people who unjustly lost or were never granted their citizenship.

Finley says others will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Telegdi contends there is too much legislative baggage inherent in the existing bill and there are "tens of thousands" of people not covered by the proposed amendments.

It's time Canada had citizenship legislation that fully complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is easy to read and easy to understand, he said.

"You should not have to be a constitutional lawyer to be able to decipher if you are a citizen or not."

A government spokesman said about 450 of the people who have contacted Citizenship and Immigration seeking citizenship may fall into one of the categories covered by the proposals.

"These are cases that are being individually reviewed and, for some, the minister is providing a special grant of citizenship," said departmental spokesman Doug Kellam. "She has done so for about 100 of those cases thus far."

Canadian citizenship was murky before the 1947 Citizenship Act and many war brides and their children relied on government orders-in-council to resolve their status.

Among other things, the rules said children born out of wedlock, or children of a father who adopted a second nationality, could be disqualified as Canadian citizens.

Some estimate the number who were denied rightful citizenship in the hundreds of thousands.

"The proposed legislation casts a wider net and the government cannot be certain as to how many people will potentially be affected nor how many of them will ultimately come forward," Kellam said in an e-mail.

"What's key is that the people affected by the bill will be Canadian citizens and will be able to come forward at any time to claim their status."

The proposals would restore status to anyone born in Canada or who became a Canadian on or after Jan. 1, 1947, and then lost their citizenship.

They also include war brides who are not already Canadian and people born in Canada prior to 1947 who became citizens when the first citizenship act took effect.

The exceptions would be those who renounced their citizenship with Canadian authorities, those born in Canada to a foreign diplomat, or those whose citizenship was revoked by the government because it was obtained by fraud.

Anyone born abroad to a Canadian on or after Jan. 1, 1947, would be recognized as a Canadian citizen from birth, but only if they are the first generation born abroad. The exceptions would be those who renounced their citizenship. No one who is a citizen today would lose their citizenship as a result of the amendments.

Chapman said Canada needs a new citizenship act, whether through revised amendments or a whole new rewrite.

"This government is the first government that has really seriously taken the lost-Canadian issue on," said Chapman, who stands to regain his citizenship under the proposed amendments.

"I hope this is either a fix or (the committee members) are able to fine-tune it and that we can come out of this with everybody's citizenship intact.

"Let's close this very archaic, horrid chapter of Canadian history once and for all and let's get on with it. We need a new citizenship act."

Liberal Jim Karygiannis warns the proposed measures would create future lost Canadians.

"This is unconscionable," said Karygiannis, a member of the citizenship and immigration committee.

"The government is disallowing second-generation Canadians born abroad to claim their birthright."

A statement issued Tuesday by Finley's office said the previous Liberal government "had years to help lost Canadians but chose not to act."

"We are taking action to help those who have been denied Canadian citizenship," said the statement.

"We are proposing a broad and generous legislative solution that will eliminate complex bureaucratic processes and give people the citizenship status they deserve."

It said the Commons committee report unanimously called for citizenship to be limited to first-generation Canadians born abroad.

"Our proposed bill reflects that. Mr. Karygiannis is a part of the committee."

Dec 11, 2007 04:30 AM
John Stevenson
Community Editorial Board

The need to improve the quality of life for those among us affected by poverty and all its manifestations has been a focus of this newspaper for some time.

Much has been written regarding national, provincial, regional and municipal anti-poverty strategies. Several refreshing proposals aimed at improving current policies and practices have been offered.

Puzzling to me, however, is why most of us insist on examining this subject strictly based upon statistical economic indicators and governmental accountability.

Each of us has a vested interest in improving general well-being in our local community. To suppose that the eradication of poverty will be achieved through an all-encompassing government policy is naive.

Impoverishment in all its aspects, for vividly apparent reasons, is for the most part localized inside clearly identifiable boundaries. It seems logical then that the most effective solutions will be found in vigorous local strategies developed and implemented by community leaders from every discipline and socio-economic background.

Poverty crosses all geographic, ethnic, cultural, age and gender boundaries and to think otherwise is to be uninformed. Before meaningful progress will be achieved, we must have a consensus in our community that a reduction in poverty is a good thing for all of us.

Most of us will say: Of course it is. But do we really have this communal consensus?

Sadly, many of us prefer to live by the adage "out of sight, out of mind" and have long forgotten or ignored the "one for all, all for one" attitude so necessary for sustainable community prosperity.

Historically, governments have legislated and policed economic legislation relating to minimum wage, health protection and various welfare programs.

Why was this necessary? Because unless mandated by law it would have been left to the contradictory elements constituting our human nature.

Left to our own devices, it is likely that business and industry would compensate labour as little as possible to guarantee the lowest cost of production – even at the expense of creating a growing lower class. What our government cannot do is legislate attitudes. For this we rely on ourselves.

It must be acknowledged with some admiration that many individuals and groups donate substantial sums toward the expansion and improvement of health services, arts and culture, and for excellence in higher education. This kind of beneficence is less visible on the anti-poverty circuit.

Research study upon study shows a clear link between poverty and crime. Anything that can be done to eliminate the root causes of the former will reduce the growth of the latter.

A collaborative effort through a true and active community partnership of business leaders, educators, churches, service clubs and existing social service providers is what is needed to best satisfy the requirements for developing and implementing a workable anti-poverty strategy tailored to a specific community.

Government anti-poverty initiatives are formulated from statistical data analysis across too broad a spectrum. I will choose to rely on observation and human experience over statistical research that categorizes people by number. It is wise to remember that statistically defined national economic well-being does not mean a prosperous and just society for all.

Only a cynic or first-rate pessimist would suggest that nothing of consequence is being done to remove roadblocks impeding progress for the less privileged. Many agencies, charities and foundations are working independently to provide opportunity funding for programs aimed at assisting the less privileged in improving their capacity for social and economic advancement.

The key to long-term success, however, is for all funders and service providers to collaborate without personal agendas and demonstrate their "one-for-all" attitude by joining together to attack the problem.

This is the best approach to reducing the root causes of a situation that, left unattended, will continue to be an embarrassment to us all.

John Stevenson is former member of the Star's Community Editorial Board.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

WASHINGTON — Rudy Giuliani says he wanted to deport all 400,000 illegal immigrants from New York City when he was mayor there, but federal officials' incompetence made him tailor policy friendly to immigrants.

The GOP presidential candidate, whose primary rivals have been hammering him for weeks for running a "sanctuary city" friendly to illegal immigrants, told FOX News contributor Bill Sammon that he had to accommodate illegal aliens because the feds would only round up to deport 700-1,500 each year.

"If they could [have deported them], I would have have turned all the people over. It would have helped me. I would have had a smaller population. I would have had fewer problems," Giuliani said in an interview given for Sammon's upcoming book, "Meet the Next President."

Giuliani has faced heavy criticism from his more conservative rivals along the campaign trail for a number of moderate positions he has taken on immigration, homosexuality and abortion.

With respect to immigration, opponents offer a 1994 comment from the former New York City mayor to demonstrate his soft policy.

"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens. ... If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive," Giuliani is quoted as saying at the time.

In the interview, Giuliani laid blame on the U.S. immigration system, saying that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service — now Immigration and Customs Enforcement — was unable to handle the crush of deportation referrals made by city law enforcement. Given that set of circumstances, he said he was left with a population that could either be marginalized or put under the law.

"My objective was to make New York City safe," Giuliani said, explaining that he'd rather have the estimated 50,000 to 60,000 illegal children in New York attending school than on the streets.

By Delia Lloyd
Published: December 11, 2007

LONDON: I recently took a trip through the English countryside with my family. On our way back to London, we stopped at a guest house with a marvelous, extensive yard. My two children - trapped for six days in a cramped minivan as they beheld an endless array of thatched roofs, roman ruins and medieval tithing barns - promptly began running, shrieking, and jumping to celebrate their new-found freedom. When I went to check out the next morning, I mentioned to the proprietor that we'd love to come back sometime. Without missing a beat he smiled and said, "Yes, do come back when the children are older." I laughed politely. He wasn't joking.

It's a funny thing I've noticed since arriving here 10 months ago. I wouldn't say that the English don't like kids, but they do expect them to grow up faster. You see this most readily in the classroom. The English version of kindergarten - "reception" - takes place at the age of four. At this point, children begin attending school for a full (six and a half hour) day, and they also begin learning to read and doing homework.

Sometimes, this starts even earlier. At the first preschool my daughter attended here there was a staff member whose job it was to individually tutor three and four year-olds with reading.

The whole idea of "play-based education," which takes up so much emotional space in America, is a nonstarter over here. Even the groovier preschools - like the one my daughter attends, which offers gymnastics and yoga - still expect students to learn the basics, preferably in French!

The extracurricular activities too are more hard core. Drama classes don't advertise creativity; they talk about self-confidence, public-speaking and diction. Swimming lessons are not about making kids more comfortable in the water. They're about learning the backstroke, dammit!

And try finding a playground in London for children over five. I live in a neighborhood with a disproportionate number of elementary schools, and the closest play area not designed for toddlers is more than a 30-minute walk away. The message seems to be that when you hit five, playtime is over.

Then there's discipline. In contrast to America, it's perfectly O.K. to yell at a child. I did a double-take the first time I heard a teacher give a three-year-old a time out. It wasn't just what she said - but the tone she used - that made me think I'd been air-lifted into the land of Oliver Twist. No one else seemed to be shocked.

Indeed, the few occasions when I've been complimented by strangers for my parenting here were all moments when I was disciplining my kids. Perhaps people were simply surprised to see an American being strict.

What is clear is that by the time they're six, children should not only be familiar with the works of Jane Austen, they should also have cultivated her heroines' manners.

There surely are different parenting philosophies in the two countries. In America, for example, "Attachment Parenting" has been growing in popularity. The basic thrust is that infants naturally seek closeness to another person (their mother) and feel secure when that person is present. So you want to engender practices that facilitate this physical bond, like breast-feeding and co-sleeping. Because you take cues from the child, it's inappropriate to set deadlines for reaching certain milestones, like toilet training, before he or she is ready. Not surprisingly, you'll find chapters of Attachment Parenting International in 35 states, while in Britain, the total number is three.

It would be tempting to conclude that the more severe nature of childhood in England has had nefarious consequences, rendering children, well, unhappier. And it's true that in a recent Unicef study, Britain came in last in a survey of 18 rich countries on an overall measure of child well-being.

But guess who came in 17th? The United States. The two countries were statistically indistinguishable from each other on most indicators.

So what can we conclude from this? Not much. The longer I'm here, the less I'm bothered by it all. When I arrived, I practically had an ulcer trying to navigate my 5-year-old son through the Oxford Learning Tree, the popular British reading program. "Back home he'd be doing Play Dough and Legos," I kept thinking to myself, "not trying to figure out why 'kit' becomes 'kite' when you add the final 'e.' "

Now, I badger his teacher to give him extra math homework! Is he happy? Who knows? I'm too busy signing him up for Mandarin fencing lessons.

Delia Lloyd is a writer living in London.

By Paul Locatelli
Article Launched: 12/11/2007 01:35:49 AM PST

During this holiday season, millions of us will be celebrating, in our own ways, God coming into our world.

Our Jewish sisters and brothers are in the midst of their celebration of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, as they recall the victory of the Maccabees, the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple, and the miracle of the oil that burned for eight days.

Our Muslim brothers and sisters will, at the end of December, celebrate Eid al-Adha, the Feast of Sacrifice, which lasts for three days and commemorates Ibrahim's (Abraham's) willingness to obey God by sacrificing his son. But when Ibrahim heard a voice from heaven, he stopped and instead was allowed to sacrifice a ram.

Our African-American sisters and brothers will celebrate Kwanzaa, which recalls seven principles to live by: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith.

This time is one of particular reflection for me. I find lessons from the past apply to our world today. Advent, which began Dec. 2, is the time when Christians prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

I had the privilege of celebrating the liturgy on the first day of Advent with Santa Clara University's campus community of students, staff and faculty. These are the reflections that came to me in prayer while preparing for that celebration:

In the second chapter of Isaiah, the prophet says, to paraphrase, all nations shall stream toward the
Advertisement
Lord's temple - in the holy city of Jerusalem - and learn from God. Then "they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war . . . come, let us walk in the light of the Lord."

Isaiah speaks to people of all faiths and all people of good will. Recall that the prophet Isaiah, whom Jesus often cited to clarify his own mission to the world, called for harmony because he foresaw a better life for the people of Israel who were being confronted by a hostile Assyrian empire that wanted to occupy or destroy them.

Living in a world troubled by war, conflict and alienation, just as our world is today, Isaiah challenged the leaders not to be politically expedient and the people not to despair, but for all to be faithful to God's call for peace and justice. It's a beautiful image of all nations and many people streaming toward the holy mountain, the temple in the city of Jerusalem.

Isaiah is a prophet for our time and world as much as for the people of ancient Israel. He could see grace and goodness in the world; he called on the people to see what he saw and to have the courage to overcome war and conflict - over race or poverty or culture or religion or any ideal or emotion that divides us. Isaiah imagined a time when God would establish a new world order on earth and care for all creation as God intends for us to do. For our part, may we live as citizens who will fashion better communities and democracy by personal engagement.

In this time leading up to elections, this includes selecting candidates who will work for global understanding and justice as we also must. May we overcome prejudice and alienation and form communities where immigrants and people who've been here five generations, Native Americans and refugees from all parts of the world, poor and rich, gay and straight, friend and stranger, live as sisters and brothers in God.

And may we tenderly care for the earth, God's creation, for it is fragile, and we owe to future generations an earth that is clean, green, and just as beautiful as we know it.

Isaiah imagined the new presence of the God in our midst, a God who would bring new light into the world. People of all nations and religions would walk in the light and, metaphorically, stream up to the holy mountain - the temple of the city of Jerusalem - where all would see God. May we be alert to the goodness of all people and work for understanding among people of all cultures, races, ethnic backgrounds, religions and ways of life.

Isaiah imagined people doing good by using their gifts for the life of the world. May we see ourselves as gifts from the God of all people and may we always make God's presence visible to others - as people of mercy and compassion, justice and faith, committed to building a more humane, sustainable, and just world of peace and harmony among all.
PAUL LOCATELLI, S.J., is president of Santa Clara University.

Dan Farber & Larry Dignan

December 11th, 2007

One of the big takeaways from Hewlett-Packard’s analyst meeting will be that the company’s information technology overhaul serves multiple purposes.

To wit:

* HP’s IT consolidation is designed to save money;
* The teams are that are carrying out the consolidation are being trailed by HP services soldiers to glean insight;
* CEO Mark Hurd said the IT overhaul hasn’t been entirely smooth;
* But if all goes well, HP can take its knowledge and sell customers on it.

“We’ve had issues shutting down data centers,” said Hurd. “At the end take we will take these lessons learned and give them to customers.”

Other technology giants such as IBM, Cisco and others have similar plans.

But there’s one big problem. These technology giants can use themselves as IT guinea pigs and then turn them into services. Cisco can transform its internal technology systems to embrace Web 2.0. You can’t.

Why? These big technology architecture overhauls require CEO participation and folks like Cisco CEO John Chambers are on board. The CEO also can’t blink when your SOA/consolidation/automation project doesn’t go well. That’s what makes HP’s overhaul a bit different. Hurd won’t blink–he’s obsessed with efficiency. What happens when another non-technology CEO blinks? The project stalls. Even worse the IT overhaul disappears and all those old apps keep chugging along. There’s a reason your company has thousands of old applications–somebody choked.

Hurd said all CIOs want to cut costs and simplify. It would be swell if everyone got on the virtualization, consolidation and efficiency bandwagons at the same time.

Then Hurd dropped a large “but.” “I don’t think the CIO in isolation makes the call,” said Hurd.

He added:

“From our experience this is a CEO decision executed by a team. If our team (CEO, CFO etc) doesn’t support the process it will fail. When you start transforming you will run into problems. As soon as CEO and CFO blink the transformation stops.”

Will your CEO or CFO blink when your data center consolidation doesn’t go well? Probably. Perhaps that’s why we’re all sitting on a rat’s nest of legacy applications.

Dec 10, 2007 | 9:54AM

If only the Los Angeles Lakers could hold up their end of the bargain, one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports would once again be rekindled. While Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen are leading the Boston Celtics reclamation project, Kobe Bryant and his emergent teammates are trudging along on the road to respectability in Los Angeles.

But, this blog post isn’t about the future, or even the present, it’s about the some of the greatest players ever to lace on a pair of sneakers, chuck basketballs at a rim 18 inches in diameter and pass through the NBA locker rooms in Boston and Los Angeles. From Wilt and West to Russell and Bird, some of the biggest, most recognizable names in NBA history wore either purple and gold or green and white. But, who were the best of the bunch?



Keep in mind that we’ve given extra weight to players that spent most, or all of their careers with their team. So, while Shaq is one of the greatest players of all-time, counting this current season he has spent just as much time playing for other franchises as he has for the Lakers. Same with players like Wilt Chamberlain, who only spent the last 5 years of his illustrious 14-year career in Los Angeles.

So, after much conjecture, we present our list of the top 10 Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics of all-time.

Top 10 Los Angeles Lakers of All-Time

1. Magic Johnson
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Jerry West
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Elgin Baylor
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Wilt Chamberlain
8. James Worthy
9. Gail Goodrich
10. George Mikan

Top 10 Boston Celtics of All-Time

1. Larry Bird
2. Bill Russell
3. John Havlicek
4. Dave Cowens
5. Bob Cousy
6. Kevin McHale
7. Robert Parish
8. Paul Pierce
9. Tom Heinsohn
10. Dennis Johnson

As you can see, while the Celtics 10 might have a bit more depth, the Lakers’ 10 would probably win out in any fictional head-to-head match-up given their advantages in height and athleticism.

StarterGuard(TM) Failsafe Battery System to be Sold throughout CaliforniaFirst Purchase Order for Immediate Delivery Received
December 11, 2007: 06:30 AM EST

POMPTON PLAINS, N.J., Dec. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Smart Energy Solutions, Inc. , developer and manufacturer of the innovative Battery Brain(TM) product line of vehicle and marine devices, today announced that All Start Battery, Inc., a Los Angeles based private Automotive Dealer Expeditor, will be carrying a private label version of the Battery Brain(TM) under the name "StarterGuard(TM) Failsafe Battery System" developed for automotive/truck dealerships. The two companies have signed a long-term, multi-million dollar distribution agreement together with a purchase order for immediate delivery.

Automotive expeditors work in tandem with dealerships to provide option packages for cars, most notably security systems, audio- video- communication systems, and financing/insurances programs. All Start Battery, Inc. was the brain child of one man who saw a need of his customers and looked for a way to fill it: "We had customers coming in almost every day with dead battery issues," explains Dov Hoffman, President of All Start Battery, Inc. "This was a huge customer service issue for the delays and problems it created in people's lives, as well as a serious environmental issue because so many batteries were being replaced sooner than they should have been."

His investigation brought him to Smart Energy Solutions, maker of the Battery Brain. At that point, Hoffman and Smart Energy Solutions struck a partnership, and All Start Battery, Inc. became the exclusive distributor to car dealerships of Battery Brain under the private label version, StarterGuard(TM), for the State of California.

"We are proud to partner with Smart Energy Solutions to provide StarterGuard(TM) for the protection of consumers and the environment in California. We are selective about which products we distribute. We only want to work with companies that are forward thinkers and really have something special to bring to the table. All Start Battery, Inc. also has a 'Green Side.' "Every day we were replacing car batteries that should have lasted the customer several more years. A lot of these batteries eventually go straight into landfills, ruining the environment. We believe that drivers will see the benefits of using StarterGuard(TM) with less of these batteries ending up in landfills."

"The agreement with All Start Battery, Inc. provides our company the opportunity to increase our penetration in the California vehicle market," stated Pete Mateja, CEO of Smart Energy Solutions. "We are looking forward to supporting the aggressive growth plan of All Start Battery, Inc. In addition, Smart Energy is actively pursuing other comparable growth opportunities with automotive expeditors in both the U.S.A. and Canada."

About Smart Energy Solutions

Smart Energy Solutions, Inc. is the manufacturer of a line of vehicle accessory products that constantly monitors electrical discharge of the battery for nearly all kinds of vehicles including autos, SUVs/trucks, medium and heavy duty trucks, military, buses, RV's, boats, commercial vehicles and personal watercraft. The products detect that the battery is losing the required charge needed to start the vehicle's engine and they automatically disconnect the battery to preserve its starting power. The company is headquartered in Pompton Plains, NJ, with operations in, Zhuhai, China, Petach Tikva, Israel and Pompton Plains, NJ. Visit http://www.smgy.net .

Forward-Looking Statements:

Actual results could differ materially from any forward-looking statements contained in any Smart Energy Solutions press release. All statements made in this press release are made as of the date of the release and could change due to unknown risks and uncertainties.

Contacts:

Press Contact
Bruce G. MacDonald, Liebler!MacDonald, 248-233-8062, bmacd@liemac.com

Investor Contact
Ed Braniff, Smart Energy Solutions, 973-248-8008, ed.braniff@smgy.net
Paul Holm, H.L. Lanzet, Inc. - 212-888-5470, lanzet@aol.com

Vadodara (PTI): Making a strong statement regarding the law and order situation in the state, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, "all people are not treated equally in Gujarat".

"Yahan ke halat achche nahi hai. Sabh barabari ke nazar se nahi dekhe jate (The situation prevailing here is not good. Everybody is not treated equally)," said Singh while commenting on the law and order situation prevailing in Gujarat.

Addressing a gathering of senior citizens, freedom fighters, lawyers, doctors and others in Karelibaug locality, Singh asked, "Isn't the Indian Constitution equal for all?".

"Doesn't our Constitution state that man or woman, majority or minority, adivasi or Scheduled Caste, all have equal rights," he said.

"Do we want to destroy the legal rights existing in our country," he asked.

"Then do you think that Gujarat will be insulted if Congress party opposes the policies of the state government," he said, while referring to Narendra Modi's recent comment that Congress had insulted the state by using phrases like "merchants of death".

On the issue of terrorism, he said, "an atmosphere of fear is being created in Gujarat".

Singh requested the people not to be carried away by the false propaganda of the BJP government.

Talking about the power crisis in the state, Singh said, "Gujarat is a power deficient state". The situation is deteriorating day-by-day as this government has not done anything for increasing the capacity of power generation.

"Under these circumstances, how can Gujarat become the number one state in the country? How can new industries be set up in the state," he asked.

"The UPA government is setting up a 4,000 MW mega power station at Mundra," Singh said.

If the Congress comes to power, the work on this project will be completed in the next three years, he said, adding that the project will make Gujarat a power-surplus state.

"The BJP does not have an economic policy and it has no ideology in matters related to development and economic affairs," Singh remarked.

"In 1991, the BJP had opposed the reforms that we have ushered in (Manmohan Singh was the Finance Minister in the Narasimha Rao-led-Congress government)," he said.

"If we had listened to the BJP then, what would have been the economic situation of the country today," the Prime Minister asked.

He said more than 300 debt-ridden farmers had committed suicide in Gujarat because of the state government's policies.

"The condition of the farmers is very bad. They are given just four to six hours of power supply as compared to the 14 hours they used to receive during the past Congress regime in Gujarat," he said.

"The present government has failed to understand the problems of the farming community", he added.

Talking about the rural development in Gujarat, Singh said, "the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme will be extended to all the districts of Gujarat from April 1 next year".

"At present it is being implemented in nine districts," he said.

"This will help in removing poverty from the villages of the state," Singh added.

Speaking about the Sardar Sarovar Project built on the river Narmada in Gujarat, Singh said, "it was UPA government which had given the approval for raising the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to 121.92 meters".

"During six years of NDA rule nothing was done for raising the height of the dam," he said.

"It was our government which removed all the obstacles coming in the way of raising of the dam's height," he said.