Now this actually came to pass back in April, but has just come to light..
In Arizona, women are now legally pregnant two weeks before conception, according to a new law, the Orwellian-named, “Women’s Health and Safety Act,” signed yesterday by Republican Governor Jan Brewer. The scientifically, medically, ethically, and intellectually dishonest legislation is designed to reduce the amount of time a woman is allowed to have a legal abortion, and is one of the most draconian bills to become law in America.
The bill was sponsored by extremist Arizona State Rep. Kimberly Yee.. who last month penned an op-ed titled, “No drug test, no welfare.”
Only in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.. Where else could a woman be pregnant without coitus..?
Translate
..There's a little Samuel Pepys in all of us..
Monday, August 27, 2012
Sunday, August 26, 2012
An interesting circumstance here..
Anders Breveik, the young man who shot and killed 77 people in a park outside Oslo was found guilty of murder, and given a 21 year sentence for his actions. Mind you, it's unlikely he'll ever see the day he walks free again, simply for the fact he'll be continually thought to be a danger to the public.
But, here's the interesting part. Breveik claimed throughout his trial that he was sane.. that his 'demonstration' was political in nature. Yet the prosecution throughout, questioned whether the man was in his right mind. To all appearances, the PF's office was acting as de facto defense..
A verdict of guilt and a prison sentence, however, were not foregone conclusions. Although there was no doubt that Breivik had committed the murders, the question of his sanity dominated the trial. Successful insanity defenses are rare, especially for heinous crimes, but when insanity is claimed, it is almost always the defendant who raises the issue...
Makes sense..
However, Breivik’s trial offered the unusual spectacle – apparently without precedent in Norway – of a defendant who insisted that he was sane, while the prosecution argued for a finding of insanity. Two teams of psychiatric experts hired by the court reached differing conclusions as to whether he had been psychotic at the time of the crime. In essence, the prosecution was attempting to have an insanity verdict imposed over the objections of the defendant, in the face of conflicting evidence about Breivik’s state of mind..
How does one wrap one's mind about such a scenario..?
For legal systems like Norway’s that allow findings of insanity even against the wishes of a defendant, the motivation is clear. People suffering from severe mental illnesses often deny that there is anything wrong with them and hence may reject a defense of insanity. Courts would be faced with the prospect of punishing seriously ill persons whose behaviour was driven by psychosis, rather than sending them to a psychiatric hospital for treatment... Most people share the intuition that it is unfair to punish someone who did not understand the wrongfulness of their actions, and imposing an insanity verdict avoids having to do so..
Breivik’s case shows why that is idiotic.
As horrifying as was his behaviour, he had an overtly political end in mind. Concerned about what he called the “Islamic colonization” of Europe, he sought to kill young leaders of the Norwegian Labour Party, whose policies he believed encouraged Muslim immigration, at their summer retreat on an island in a lake near Oslo. Breivik thought his actions were justified by the legal doctrine of “necessity” to call attention to a situation that threatened the future of his country and of Europe..
This was, obviously, nothing short of an act of terrorism, and it begs the question, 'how far are we willing to excuse the actions of a man bent on political disruption, by labelling them insane, simply because such actions are outside the box'... so to speak..
Political correctness runs amok..
Anders Breveik, the young man who shot and killed 77 people in a park outside Oslo was found guilty of murder, and given a 21 year sentence for his actions. Mind you, it's unlikely he'll ever see the day he walks free again, simply for the fact he'll be continually thought to be a danger to the public.
But, here's the interesting part. Breveik claimed throughout his trial that he was sane.. that his 'demonstration' was political in nature. Yet the prosecution throughout, questioned whether the man was in his right mind. To all appearances, the PF's office was acting as de facto defense..
A verdict of guilt and a prison sentence, however, were not foregone conclusions. Although there was no doubt that Breivik had committed the murders, the question of his sanity dominated the trial. Successful insanity defenses are rare, especially for heinous crimes, but when insanity is claimed, it is almost always the defendant who raises the issue...
Makes sense..
However, Breivik’s trial offered the unusual spectacle – apparently without precedent in Norway – of a defendant who insisted that he was sane, while the prosecution argued for a finding of insanity. Two teams of psychiatric experts hired by the court reached differing conclusions as to whether he had been psychotic at the time of the crime. In essence, the prosecution was attempting to have an insanity verdict imposed over the objections of the defendant, in the face of conflicting evidence about Breivik’s state of mind..
How does one wrap one's mind about such a scenario..?
For legal systems like Norway’s that allow findings of insanity even against the wishes of a defendant, the motivation is clear. People suffering from severe mental illnesses often deny that there is anything wrong with them and hence may reject a defense of insanity. Courts would be faced with the prospect of punishing seriously ill persons whose behaviour was driven by psychosis, rather than sending them to a psychiatric hospital for treatment... Most people share the intuition that it is unfair to punish someone who did not understand the wrongfulness of their actions, and imposing an insanity verdict avoids having to do so..
Breivik’s case shows why that is idiotic.
As horrifying as was his behaviour, he had an overtly political end in mind. Concerned about what he called the “Islamic colonization” of Europe, he sought to kill young leaders of the Norwegian Labour Party, whose policies he believed encouraged Muslim immigration, at their summer retreat on an island in a lake near Oslo. Breivik thought his actions were justified by the legal doctrine of “necessity” to call attention to a situation that threatened the future of his country and of Europe..
This was, obviously, nothing short of an act of terrorism, and it begs the question, 'how far are we willing to excuse the actions of a man bent on political disruption, by labelling them insane, simply because such actions are outside the box'... so to speak..
Political correctness runs amok..
Thursday, August 23, 2012
There is a somewhat futile attempt in the markets, that the Fed will make a move towards bolstering the flagging American economy, by raising the price of oil..
And while this may appear to be a Quixotic move, charging more for the price of a gallon which will hit the consumer, it's this type of thinking which legislators are proven prone to make.
At the pump, the national average for gasoline rose less than a penny overnight to $3.22 /gallon.. about a quarter more than a month ago.
On the surface, it would seem that this trend will only benefit the oil companies, but then, they are the grease keeping the wheels turning.. so to speak..
And, with elections upcoming in the States, the Romney-Ryan proposal to reshape Medicare by giving future beneficiaries fixed amounts of money to buy health coverage is deeply unpopular in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, according to new polls that found that more likely voters in each state trust Barack to handle the issue.Keeping in mind of course, that the odds of him getting anything past the insurance lobbies in both Houses is about the same as it was when the man first took power four years ago.
The Medicare debate was catapulted to the forefront of the presidential campaign this month when Mitt announced that his running mate would be Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who is perhaps best known for proposing a budget plan, supported by Romney, to overhaul Medicare to rein in its costs.
Best of luck with that albatross, Mitt.
And the madness continues.. Troops and tanks swept into a restive town near Damascus on Thursday in an assault aimed at crushing opposition to President al-Assad, whose struggle to keep power has dragged Syria into an increasingly bloody civil war.. according to opposition sources, artillery and helicopters hammered the Sunni Muslim town of Daraya for 24 hours, killing 15 people and wounding 150, before soldiers moved in and raided houses.. About 100 people, including 59 civilians, were killed in violence across the country, says the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.. Some 200 were killed on Wednesday..
Seems if we in the West were truly interested in removing al Assad, a Black Ops team would have been sent and been home by now..
But then, in diplomatic circles, better the devil you know..
We elect such hypocrites..
And while this may appear to be a Quixotic move, charging more for the price of a gallon which will hit the consumer, it's this type of thinking which legislators are proven prone to make.
At the pump, the national average for gasoline rose less than a penny overnight to $3.22 /gallon.. about a quarter more than a month ago.
On the surface, it would seem that this trend will only benefit the oil companies, but then, they are the grease keeping the wheels turning.. so to speak..
And, with elections upcoming in the States, the Romney-Ryan proposal to reshape Medicare by giving future beneficiaries fixed amounts of money to buy health coverage is deeply unpopular in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, according to new polls that found that more likely voters in each state trust Barack to handle the issue.Keeping in mind of course, that the odds of him getting anything past the insurance lobbies in both Houses is about the same as it was when the man first took power four years ago.
The Medicare debate was catapulted to the forefront of the presidential campaign this month when Mitt announced that his running mate would be Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who is perhaps best known for proposing a budget plan, supported by Romney, to overhaul Medicare to rein in its costs.
Best of luck with that albatross, Mitt.
And the madness continues.. Troops and tanks swept into a restive town near Damascus on Thursday in an assault aimed at crushing opposition to President al-Assad, whose struggle to keep power has dragged Syria into an increasingly bloody civil war.. according to opposition sources, artillery and helicopters hammered the Sunni Muslim town of Daraya for 24 hours, killing 15 people and wounding 150, before soldiers moved in and raided houses.. About 100 people, including 59 civilians, were killed in violence across the country, says the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.. Some 200 were killed on Wednesday..
Seems if we in the West were truly interested in removing al Assad, a Black Ops team would have been sent and been home by now..
But then, in diplomatic circles, better the devil you know..
We elect such hypocrites..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)