"...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!
12/20/08
The German Fuck You Principle
More stories where part of Europe shows itself to have delusions of enlightenment.
"Ex-German Terrorist Walks Free After 26 Years in Prison"
"[Christain]Klar has been in prison since his arrested onNov. 16, 1982. Ten years later, he was sentenced to six concurrent lifesentences, as well as individual 15-year, 14-year and 12-year sentences."
"German law is based on the principle ofrehabilitation and it is very common for convicted murderers to serveless than 20 years for life sentences. Several other former members ofthe Red Army Faction have also been released."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470284,00.html
You may recall that, for a time, the maximum Josef Fritzl could have gotten for his apparent crimes, was 15 years.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353338,00.html.
That included considering the forced imprisonment, rape, etc., of his daughter. His case, though, is set in Austria.
Recently, Austrian prosecutors were able to charge him with murder, a crime for which he could get life, if convicted. Given that Fritzl's in his 70s, while a life sentence would be right in principle, I must concede that it's a moot point to argue that he should serve more than 20 years, let alone life, in prison. It's also moot because he'll probably be released withing 10 years, even if he's convicted on multiple charges.
At this time, I'm not able to find a story which says exactly when the murder charge was made, but I am quite certain it did not happen at the beginning of the coverage of the case. Back then, 15 years was the maximum allowable sentence for the other crimes Fritzl's alleged to have committed.
There are also two cases of German women convicted of killing their children, ranging in ages from infant to 2 years.
In the more recent case, the woman, Monika Halbe ". . . was sentenced to four years and three months in prison by the court in the western town of Siegen.' Also mentioned in the article is the other case, where the German '...woman in eastern Germany was sentenced to 15 years in prison for killing eight of her babies."
"She had buried them in flower pots and a fish tank in the garden of her parents' home near the Polish border."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7759055.stm
There's also this story, which I haven't read in full yet, but I did see this at a glance.
"The twin horrors have many Austrians wondering if their justice system is harsh enough on society's most outrageous offenders."
Let us learn of the harshness that is the Austrian justice system.
"Although both Wagner and Leidolf were convicted of murder in the1983-89 slayings at Vienna's Lainz Hospital and sentenced to lifeimprisonment, in Austria that maximum penalty typically means 15 yearsof incarceration. Like other European nations, Austria does not havethe death penalty."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/17/news/Austria-Nurse-Killings.php
I'm not a death penalty proponent. In fact, I'm against it. I was even against the hanging of Saddam Hussein, but the aforementioned German principle on rehabilitation of murderers, despite the heinousness of their crimes, and the pattern of 15 years as the actual time most people sentenced to life imprison will face if convicted in Austria, according to the above link, speaks terribly to what at least two European nations' concepts of justice are.
"Ex-German Terrorist Walks Free After 26 Years in Prison"
"[Christain]Klar has been in prison since his arrested onNov. 16, 1982. Ten years later, he was sentenced to six concurrent lifesentences, as well as individual 15-year, 14-year and 12-year sentences."
"German law is based on the principle ofrehabilitation and it is very common for convicted murderers to serveless than 20 years for life sentences. Several other former members ofthe Red Army Faction have also been released."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470284,00.html
You may recall that, for a time, the maximum Josef Fritzl could have gotten for his apparent crimes, was 15 years.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353338,00.html.
That included considering the forced imprisonment, rape, etc., of his daughter. His case, though, is set in Austria.
Recently, Austrian prosecutors were able to charge him with murder, a crime for which he could get life, if convicted. Given that Fritzl's in his 70s, while a life sentence would be right in principle, I must concede that it's a moot point to argue that he should serve more than 20 years, let alone life, in prison. It's also moot because he'll probably be released withing 10 years, even if he's convicted on multiple charges.
At this time, I'm not able to find a story which says exactly when the murder charge was made, but I am quite certain it did not happen at the beginning of the coverage of the case. Back then, 15 years was the maximum allowable sentence for the other crimes Fritzl's alleged to have committed.
There are also two cases of German women convicted of killing their children, ranging in ages from infant to 2 years.
In the more recent case, the woman, Monika Halbe ". . . was sentenced to four years and three months in prison by the court in the western town of Siegen.' Also mentioned in the article is the other case, where the German '...woman in eastern Germany was sentenced to 15 years in prison for killing eight of her babies."
"She had buried them in flower pots and a fish tank in the garden of her parents' home near the Polish border."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7759055.stm
There's also this story, which I haven't read in full yet, but I did see this at a glance.
"The twin horrors have many Austrians wondering if their justice system is harsh enough on society's most outrageous offenders."
Let us learn of the harshness that is the Austrian justice system.
"Although both Wagner and Leidolf were convicted of murder in the1983-89 slayings at Vienna's Lainz Hospital and sentenced to lifeimprisonment, in Austria that maximum penalty typically means 15 yearsof incarceration. Like other European nations, Austria does not havethe death penalty."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/17/news/Austria-Nurse-Killings.php
I'm not a death penalty proponent. In fact, I'm against it. I was even against the hanging of Saddam Hussein, but the aforementioned German principle on rehabilitation of murderers, despite the heinousness of their crimes, and the pattern of 15 years as the actual time most people sentenced to life imprison will face if convicted in Austria, according to the above link, speaks terribly to what at least two European nations' concepts of justice are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)