"...Women are back. Women, who enjoyed a high social status and levels of education under Saddam, saw terrible setbacks as Iraq fell into civil war..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28878556/
"...While Iraq in the 1950s was the first Arab country to name a woman minister and adopt a progressive family law, the leadership aspirations of women were mostly quashed under Saddam's macho regime..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/28/mideast/election.4-418001.php
Also in the second article is this: "...one allows a rapist to largely escape punishment if he marries his victim..."
I don't know any specifics about the law referenced in the article.
Further information on the treatment of women prior to the fall of Saddam: http://www.iraqiwomensleague.org/human_rights_watch_briefing_pape.htm
1/24/09
Basic cousinship.
Cousinship between pesons is determined by their common ancestor (the person of whom both are descendants).
There are more complicated cousinal relationships that I make no claims of understanding, but I have figured out the pattern for the common most cousinships.
A shared grandparent makes two persons first cousins.
A shared great-grandparent makes them second cousins.
A shared great-great grandparent makes them third cousins.
As long as both persons are descended in the same way, the pattern holds.
In the case of one person being fewer or more generations separated from the common ancestor, the cousin relation that would exist if both persons were related as the person with fewer generations separating him from the common ancestor is used. To be removed means there is a generational difference. In other words, a grandchild and a great- grandchild of the same person, are related as first cousins, once removed, not second cousins, twice removed. Likewise, a person’s great-great-grandchild and great-great-great-great-grandchild are related as third cousins, twice removed.
When one person is a son to the common ancestor, the other person is always his nephew/niece, then grand nephew/niece, then great-grand nephew/niece, and so on.
Hopefully, if I was clear and concise enough, the pattern can be recognized, and less people will need to refer to cousin charts to understand how they are related if they all they know is who their common ancestor is.
There are more complicated cousinal relationships that I make no claims of understanding, but I have figured out the pattern for the common most cousinships.
A shared grandparent makes two persons first cousins.
A shared great-grandparent makes them second cousins.
A shared great-great grandparent makes them third cousins.
As long as both persons are descended in the same way, the pattern holds.
In the case of one person being fewer or more generations separated from the common ancestor, the cousin relation that would exist if both persons were related as the person with fewer generations separating him from the common ancestor is used. To be removed means there is a generational difference. In other words, a grandchild and a great- grandchild of the same person, are related as first cousins, once removed, not second cousins, twice removed. Likewise, a person’s great-great-grandchild and great-great-great-great-grandchild are related as third cousins, twice removed.
When one person is a son to the common ancestor, the other person is always his nephew/niece, then grand nephew/niece, then great-grand nephew/niece, and so on.
Hopefully, if I was clear and concise enough, the pattern can be recognized, and less people will need to refer to cousin charts to understand how they are related if they all they know is who their common ancestor is.
1/21/09
My thoughts on the Gitmo detainees.
Many of the detainees have never been charged, and some, it seems many, remain detained by weak, difficult to even obtain for review and challenge, evidence.
The fact that some released detainees have resumed, or perhaps begun for the first time, maybe as a consequence of their improper, where applicable, detainment, their terrorist activities, does not convict the remaining Gitmo detainees. Granted, there is a higher probability of guilt among said detainees than exists for the average person, but, nevertheless, greater than average probability without fair trials to present them in, does not prove guilt. Evidence of what they might do is less important than strength of evidence for what they’re accused of doing, as the latter is needed to support the validity of the argument for the former.
Furthermore, weak evidence itself undermines the security necessity argument for indefinite detainment. Assumptions that the remaining detainees will do as whatever percentage of the released detainees who committed acts of terrorism have, is an insufficient reason for indefinite detainment. It is cruel and unusual; excessive.
Some of you want to argue that the Constitution does not apply to the detainees. I’m not a scholar on the subject. I’m not going to make claims as to what it covers, whether it’s citizens only, or any persons within the US, and I’m not making any contentions on whether Gitmo is US soil and therefor covered by the Constitution of the United States, though I think the Courts have established thus far that it is. But I am going to put forth this analogy: If your children were in the same situation as some of the detainees, your natural inclination would not be to say that all of the rights of the Constitution (which many of you would proclaim to be God-given and merely acknowledged in the Constitution) which are meant to protect people from injustices, et al, are the exclusive “privilege” of the Americans, but to adamantly contend they, at least some of them, are the humane principles which should apply to all peoples, especially your son, daughter, what have you, because it would be an injustice for them not to be. Were you a non-American parent, would you say, “screw my son, if the Americans claim he’s dangerous, that’s good enough for me. Afterall, I don’t need to see the evidence supporting his detainment; it’s the Americans who have him”?
The fact that some released detainees have resumed, or perhaps begun for the first time, maybe as a consequence of their improper, where applicable, detainment, their terrorist activities, does not convict the remaining Gitmo detainees. Granted, there is a higher probability of guilt among said detainees than exists for the average person, but, nevertheless, greater than average probability without fair trials to present them in, does not prove guilt. Evidence of what they might do is less important than strength of evidence for what they’re accused of doing, as the latter is needed to support the validity of the argument for the former.
Furthermore, weak evidence itself undermines the security necessity argument for indefinite detainment. Assumptions that the remaining detainees will do as whatever percentage of the released detainees who committed acts of terrorism have, is an insufficient reason for indefinite detainment. It is cruel and unusual; excessive.
Some of you want to argue that the Constitution does not apply to the detainees. I’m not a scholar on the subject. I’m not going to make claims as to what it covers, whether it’s citizens only, or any persons within the US, and I’m not making any contentions on whether Gitmo is US soil and therefor covered by the Constitution of the United States, though I think the Courts have established thus far that it is. But I am going to put forth this analogy: If your children were in the same situation as some of the detainees, your natural inclination would not be to say that all of the rights of the Constitution (which many of you would proclaim to be God-given and merely acknowledged in the Constitution) which are meant to protect people from injustices, et al, are the exclusive “privilege” of the Americans, but to adamantly contend they, at least some of them, are the humane principles which should apply to all peoples, especially your son, daughter, what have you, because it would be an injustice for them not to be. Were you a non-American parent, would you say, “screw my son, if the Americans claim he’s dangerous, that’s good enough for me. Afterall, I don’t need to see the evidence supporting his detainment; it’s the Americans who have him”?
1/12/09
Joe the Plumber wants you to know:
Ignorance is patriotic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDlst03I3lk
That's the interpretation I have of this. Frankly, disagreeing makes you a terrorist loving, baby murderer. How did babies get into this, and how am I murderer, you ask? Stop asking questions, you whore for Hamas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDlst03I3lk
That's the interpretation I have of this. Frankly, disagreeing makes you a terrorist loving, baby murderer. How did babies get into this, and how am I murderer, you ask? Stop asking questions, you whore for Hamas!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)