Filtered Posts
Abused Husbands
Based on what little I understand about this subject, the abuser-abusee relationship is seldom one-sided. Because of certain reasons, abusee-type individuals always end up gravitating toward the abuser types. There is a high probability that a person “escaping� one abusive relationship will sooner or later end up in another because he/she will be subconsciously looking for the same characteristics that he/she found in the first one. By and large, when men are abused, they are in a lot less vulnerable situation than women because – (1) they are usually physically stronger so are less likely to get beaten up and more likely not to get physically damaged even if beaten up, (2) they are usually economically more empowered so have not much financial disincentive to “walk out�, (3) they do not get pregnant.
In Islamic societies, the men are even more in a position of advantage because (4) they can declare “talaq!� strictly on their own, and (5) most Islamic societies are male-dominated so men have less reason to compromise.
Posted by
bjkumar
Jan 16, 2009 01:29 pm
Dr. Sohail, thanks for a good read and a most interesting case history! I am glad you could help your patient.Based on what little I understand about this subject, the abuser-abusee relationship is seldom one-sided. Because of certain reasons, abusee-type individuals always end up gravitating toward the abuser types. There is a high probability that a person “escaping� one abusive relationship will sooner or later end up in another because he/she will be subconsciously looking for the same characteristics that he/she found in the first one. By and large, when men are abused, they are in a lot less vulnerable situation than women because – (1) they are usually physically stronger so are less likely to get beaten up and more likely not to get physically damaged even if beaten up, (2) they are usually economically more empowered so have not much financial disincentive to “walk out�, (3) they do not get pregnant.
In Islamic societies, the men are even more in a position of advantage because (4) they can declare “talaq!� strictly on their own, and (5) most Islamic societies are male-dominated so men have less reason to compromise.
A Guantanamo Diary
(Excerpted from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html)
January 13, 2009
Obama’s Plan to Close Prison at Guantánamo May Take Year
By WILLIAM GLABERSON and HELENE COOPER
President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.
But experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.
People who have discussed the issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it appeared that the broad outlines of plans for the detention camp were taking shape. They said transition officials appeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the Bush administration’s military commissions system for trying detainees.
In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. The Bush administration has insisted that such a measure is necessary to close the Guantánamo camp and bring some detainees to the United States.
Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close the camp. But in an interview on Sunday on ABC, he indicated that the process could take time, saying, “It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.� Closing it within the first 100 days of his administration, he said, would be “a challenge.�
…
The transition official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the plans, said the administration expected to announce its Guantánamo plans next Wednesday.
…
Several said the officials appeared concerned that a proposal for a new law authorizing indefinite detention would bring the new administration much of the criticism that has been directed at the Bush administration over Guantánamo. A former military official who was part of a series of briefings at the transition headquarters in Washington said the officials had spoken about the indefinite detention proposal as a way of creating a “new Guantanámo someplace else.�
…
Some human rights groups said Monday that they were alarmed by Mr. Obama’s vague timetable and lack of specifics in his remarks Sunday. They said they worried that the administration might yield to pressure to display its toughness in dealing with terrorism in its detention policies.
“The devil is in the details,� said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has been pressing the new administration to publicly commit to immediately close Guantánamo.
…
Posted by
bjkumar
Jan 12, 2009 06:37 pm
(Excerpted from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html)
January 13, 2009
Obama’s Plan to Close Prison at Guantánamo May Take Year
By WILLIAM GLABERSON and HELENE COOPER
President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.
But experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.
People who have discussed the issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it appeared that the broad outlines of plans for the detention camp were taking shape. They said transition officials appeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the Bush administration’s military commissions system for trying detainees.
In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. The Bush administration has insisted that such a measure is necessary to close the Guantánamo camp and bring some detainees to the United States.
Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close the camp. But in an interview on Sunday on ABC, he indicated that the process could take time, saying, “It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.� Closing it within the first 100 days of his administration, he said, would be “a challenge.�
…
The transition official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the plans, said the administration expected to announce its Guantánamo plans next Wednesday.
…
Several said the officials appeared concerned that a proposal for a new law authorizing indefinite detention would bring the new administration much of the criticism that has been directed at the Bush administration over Guantánamo. A former military official who was part of a series of briefings at the transition headquarters in Washington said the officials had spoken about the indefinite detention proposal as a way of creating a “new Guantanámo someplace else.�
…
Some human rights groups said Monday that they were alarmed by Mr. Obama’s vague timetable and lack of specifics in his remarks Sunday. They said they worried that the administration might yield to pressure to display its toughness in dealing with terrorism in its detention policies.
“The devil is in the details,� said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has been pressing the new administration to publicly commit to immediately close Guantánamo.
…
Persecution of Religious Minorities In Islamic Countries
#290 Posted by Sanatani
Sanatani guh-khore!
I have a simple question for you, kambakhat!
Was Gandhiji a Gamma-pahalwan? Did he go around beating up Hindus and asking the Mussalmaans to do the same?! Did those Mussalmaans of those pre-partition days NEED any prompting from Gandhiji, of all people?! Are you really that stupid or were you simply born stupid?
Yes, the Mussalmans of the (present day) Pakistan wiped out their Hindus from those lands. And yes, most of the "liberal" Pakistanis today are too gutless and cowardly and dishonest to admit the wrong that their own baap-daada perpetrated on those hapless minorities.
But explain to me why any of it was Gandhiji's fault! What kind of moron are you to blame the deeds of the hatemongers on the ONE man who preached nothing but peace and brotherhood?
Kutta, if your beef with Gandhiji is that HE made the Hindus passive and he stopped them from massive retaliation against mussalmans then explain to me WHY it was that the average hindu bought HIS argument but rejected the call for hate that YOUR side was pushing?! What happened?! HE knew magic and your method - the hate lost to it?
Are you sure it is Gandhiji that you are mad at - and not your own Hindu "brethren" who - as you so thoughtfully listed - have many distinguished and determined boot lickers - and continue to have to this day!
No kutta, the Hindu-Mussalman divide was much older and deeper. It was not Gandhiji who brought it about - he only tried to patch it up! It was the Jinnah who forced it open and tore the place apart.
Yet, you sala sing praises of the very embodiment of evil who brought that catastrophe around?! You sala perhaps go to the Shivalaya and sing "Har har Jinnah!" every morning!
Posted by
bjkumar
May 18, 2008 08:41 pm
Re: # 290#290 Posted by Sanatani
Sanatani guh-khore!
I have a simple question for you, kambakhat!
Was Gandhiji a Gamma-pahalwan? Did he go around beating up Hindus and asking the Mussalmaans to do the same?! Did those Mussalmaans of those pre-partition days NEED any prompting from Gandhiji, of all people?! Are you really that stupid or were you simply born stupid?
Yes, the Mussalmans of the (present day) Pakistan wiped out their Hindus from those lands. And yes, most of the "liberal" Pakistanis today are too gutless and cowardly and dishonest to admit the wrong that their own baap-daada perpetrated on those hapless minorities.
But explain to me why any of it was Gandhiji's fault! What kind of moron are you to blame the deeds of the hatemongers on the ONE man who preached nothing but peace and brotherhood?
Kutta, if your beef with Gandhiji is that HE made the Hindus passive and he stopped them from massive retaliation against mussalmans then explain to me WHY it was that the average hindu bought HIS argument but rejected the call for hate that YOUR side was pushing?! What happened?! HE knew magic and your method - the hate lost to it?
Are you sure it is Gandhiji that you are mad at - and not your own Hindu "brethren" who - as you so thoughtfully listed - have many distinguished and determined boot lickers - and continue to have to this day!
No kutta, the Hindu-Mussalman divide was much older and deeper. It was not Gandhiji who brought it about - he only tried to patch it up! It was the Jinnah who forced it open and tore the place apart.
Yet, you sala sing praises of the very embodiment of evil who brought that catastrophe around?! You sala perhaps go to the Shivalaya and sing "Har har Jinnah!" every morning!
Indian Exceptionalism: Colonial Stereotypes and Postcolonial Realities
Ama yaar Rohit,
I am feeling a bit sleepy, kindly do not mind typos – if any!
You are one brilliant writer! I am absolutely impressed by your marathon stamina – what with you attaining a double digit number of articles in a matter of just a few weeks! (At this rate, you can easily cross 137 in less than a year!)
You must be writing day and night – probably even in your sleep. (Pay no attention to critics like the Kaal, who may think most of those pieses were written in that state only – and who probably wishes your name were “Ro, Hit, Chup Rah!�)
In particular, I must compliment you profusely on the very opening lines of the present article!
“….central to strategies of British colonial rule in the subcontinent. Some of these well-known generalizations about Indians are easily recalled: Hindus and Muslims were two different nations and peoples who could not live together;…�
I knew it! YOU are the answer to my prayers!
You see yaar, all this time, I have been telling chowk people that Hindus and Muslims were NOT two different nations before partition. In fact, those who claimed so at the time were demagogues and were doing so strictly for their own narrow and selfish ends and such people are evil vamps who must be condemned without any hesitation. I said it – and all Pakistani chowkies pretended deafness!
And FINALLY – here comes a brilliant writer (YOU) – who agrees with my view – that the Hindus and Muslims were, in reality, one nation and those who sowed division among them were real evil.
I am so overwhelmed with joy after my vindication through your words that tears come to my eyes, everything goes blurry and I am too overcome to read any further. Therefore, I will withhold comment on the rest of your piss until when I can get around to it!
In the meanwhile, as a token of my gratitude to you, let me tender this priceless bit of advice.
Be careful of the Neembu. Be very careful! From her comments on your piss, you may think that she is offering a bit of her thoughts and perhaps even a bit of her head – but you ought to REALLY watch out for her sharp teeth!
You see, dear Neembu has a track record of publishing one chowk article every ten years and there is a (very slim) possibility that she may feel a tad bit jealous of your smashing record of ten articles in two months – all based on your sheer brilliance, your incomparable merit, not to mention the absolute impartiality of the chowk editors to any (inadvertent) pushing of their worldview (no matter how crazy) which could be promoted through your written pisses! In particular, do watch out for her famous stabs in the back disguised as “compliments� which – occasionally, may prove to be mere sneaky attacks to make you look like a phool!
Posted by
bjkumar
Oct 27, 2007 10:00 pm
Ama yaar Rohit,
I am feeling a bit sleepy, kindly do not mind typos – if any!
You are one brilliant writer! I am absolutely impressed by your marathon stamina – what with you attaining a double digit number of articles in a matter of just a few weeks! (At this rate, you can easily cross 137 in less than a year!)
You must be writing day and night – probably even in your sleep. (Pay no attention to critics like the Kaal, who may think most of those pieses were written in that state only – and who probably wishes your name were “Ro, Hit, Chup Rah!�)
In particular, I must compliment you profusely on the very opening lines of the present article!
“….central to strategies of British colonial rule in the subcontinent. Some of these well-known generalizations about Indians are easily recalled: Hindus and Muslims were two different nations and peoples who could not live together;…�
I knew it! YOU are the answer to my prayers!
You see yaar, all this time, I have been telling chowk people that Hindus and Muslims were NOT two different nations before partition. In fact, those who claimed so at the time were demagogues and were doing so strictly for their own narrow and selfish ends and such people are evil vamps who must be condemned without any hesitation. I said it – and all Pakistani chowkies pretended deafness!
And FINALLY – here comes a brilliant writer (YOU) – who agrees with my view – that the Hindus and Muslims were, in reality, one nation and those who sowed division among them were real evil.
I am so overwhelmed with joy after my vindication through your words that tears come to my eyes, everything goes blurry and I am too overcome to read any further. Therefore, I will withhold comment on the rest of your piss until when I can get around to it!
In the meanwhile, as a token of my gratitude to you, let me tender this priceless bit of advice.
Be careful of the Neembu. Be very careful! From her comments on your piss, you may think that she is offering a bit of her thoughts and perhaps even a bit of her head – but you ought to REALLY watch out for her sharp teeth!
You see, dear Neembu has a track record of publishing one chowk article every ten years and there is a (very slim) possibility that she may feel a tad bit jealous of your smashing record of ten articles in two months – all based on your sheer brilliance, your incomparable merit, not to mention the absolute impartiality of the chowk editors to any (inadvertent) pushing of their worldview (no matter how crazy) which could be promoted through your written pisses! In particular, do watch out for her famous stabs in the back disguised as “compliments� which – occasionally, may prove to be mere sneaky attacks to make you look like a phool!
Rest in Peace Pakistan (1947-1974)
Zee,
All I am saying by ``remove that burqa`` is to unleash the power of your womenfolks.
In other words, replace this
with THIS!
And note how fiercely those fires burn in the eyes!
None of this morbid ``R.I.P.`` talk! Unleash the Pakistani nari - who means business! Who is getting places - and no Pakistani male can stop her.
Posted by
bjkumar
Jul 2, 2007 05:21 am
Zee,
All I am saying by ``remove that burqa`` is to unleash the power of your womenfolks.
In other words, replace this
with THIS!
And note how fiercely those fires burn in the eyes!
None of this morbid ``R.I.P.`` talk! Unleash the Pakistani nari - who means business! Who is getting places - and no Pakistani male can stop her.
Fight Hudood, Protect Women
Chowk staff is expected to demonstrate due diligence in application of the chowk`s lofty and much-vaunted ``guidelines`` to prevent unscrupulous interactors from dragging these discussions into individual-specific, closed issues which have been amply discussed elsewhere.
Interactors who may happen to be positioned - either by themselves or through spouses - into any positions of ``authority`` at chowk, must never be exempted, either. In view of the claims of ``idealism``, such individuals are expected to set a better role model, not a worse one.
Thank you.
Posted by
bjkumar
Mar 7, 2007 05:10 am
Chowk staff is expected to demonstrate due diligence in application of the chowk`s lofty and much-vaunted ``guidelines`` to prevent unscrupulous interactors from dragging these discussions into individual-specific, closed issues which have been amply discussed elsewhere.
Interactors who may happen to be positioned - either by themselves or through spouses - into any positions of ``authority`` at chowk, must never be exempted, either. In view of the claims of ``idealism``, such individuals are expected to set a better role model, not a worse one.
Thank you.
Fight Hudood, Protect Women
Let it be known to all and sundry that:
1) Gandhiji died in 1948, fully 25 years or so ahead of when the Pakistanis went around creating the 1973 constitution
2) Any attempts to link Gandhiji to the present plight of Pakistani womanhood struggling under the weight of the Hudood are mere examples of ultimate chicanery.
3) Likewise for every little bit of authoritarian act since 1948 and every act of cowardice that the Pakistani “liberals” have been demonstrating since.
4) Gandhiji (to the best of my knowledge) did not use toilet paper and would likely have been opposed to the VERY Pakistani innovative use of their 1973 constitution as depicted below.
Posted by
bjkumar
Mar 7, 2007 04:28 am
Let it be known to all and sundry that:
1) Gandhiji died in 1948, fully 25 years or so ahead of when the Pakistanis went around creating the 1973 constitution
2) Any attempts to link Gandhiji to the present plight of Pakistani womanhood struggling under the weight of the Hudood are mere examples of ultimate chicanery.
3) Likewise for every little bit of authoritarian act since 1948 and every act of cowardice that the Pakistani “liberals” have been demonstrating since.
4) Gandhiji (to the best of my knowledge) did not use toilet paper and would likely have been opposed to the VERY Pakistani innovative use of their 1973 constitution as depicted below.
Psychology of Guerrilla War
Dear Dr. sohail,
I do not have immediate comments on your article (perhaps later).
But I notice that you have adopted my stryle of interaction.
And are putting extra spaces between lines - just like I do.
Looks highly fishy to me.
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 09:42 pm
Dear Dr. sohail,
I do not have immediate comments on your article (perhaps later).
But I notice that you have adopted my stryle of interaction.
And are putting extra spaces between lines - just like I do.
Looks highly fishy to me.
The Worst Form of Banality
[The worst form of banality]
Silly me! I always thought it was this web site!
And its interactors!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 09:16 pm
[The worst form of banality]
Silly me! I always thought it was this web site!
And its interactors!
Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan
#50
Yaar, how did you manage to get a blank line, even without an interact index of zero!
I am impressed!!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 09:14 pm
#50
Yaar, how did you manage to get a blank line, even without an interact index of zero!
I am impressed!!
Indian Shuakat Aziz and Pakistani Manmohan Singh
[he has revealed that Dr. Manmohan Singh is in fact India’s ‘Shuakat Aziz’; ]
And who the heck is that Shaukat Aziz, again?!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 09:08 pm
[he has revealed that Dr. Manmohan Singh is in fact India’s ‘Shuakat Aziz’; ]
And who the heck is that Shaukat Aziz, again?!
The Worst Form of Banality
You seem to have a thing for spirits.
In and out of the bottle, both!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 09:06 pm
You seem to have a thing for spirits.
In and out of the bottle, both!
Sabre Rattling in the Persian Gulf
#27
Ama Sohail,
Yaar, you can always take excerpts - usually out of context - and use it to make ANY claims.
Bottom line is - politicians are all terrible!
The khakis are too, and they carry guns, too!
Happy, now?!!
PS: I hope YOU were not among the people who killed ``Absent in the Spring`` - or ``Abset in the Spring`` as spelt by the Chowk editors/staff!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 09:02 pm
#27
Ama Sohail,
Yaar, you can always take excerpts - usually out of context - and use it to make ANY claims.
Bottom line is - politicians are all terrible!
The khakis are too, and they carry guns, too!
Happy, now?!!
PS: I hope YOU were not among the people who killed ``Absent in the Spring`` - or ``Abset in the Spring`` as spelt by the Chowk editors/staff!
Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan
[Usually television is called the idiot’s box]
Why would somebody call it by that silly name when they could call it the ``boob tube`` instead!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 08:58 pm
[Usually television is called the idiot’s box]
Why would somebody call it by that silly name when they could call it the ``boob tube`` instead!
Exchange Siachen Madness for Mountain Peace
#Zee
Theek hai yaar.
Take Kashmir.
Take it right now!
Ja tujhey baksh diya!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 08:56 pm
#Zee
Theek hai yaar.
Take Kashmir.
Take it right now!
Ja tujhey baksh diya!
Why Have This Train At All?
Chowk staff,
Please restore my Interact Index.
BEFORE I get tempted to spam again!
Posted by
bjkumar
Feb 22, 2007 08:52 pm
Chowk staff,
Please restore my Interact Index.
BEFORE I get tempted to spam again!
- bjkumar
- Interacts: 2925
- iLogs: 15
- Gallery: 4
- Page views: 17926
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Mar 16 2005
- Last signin: Nov 22 2009
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
