Beaten for a baby

A judge has refused to grant a divorce to a pregnant woman trying to leave her husband two years after he was jailed for beating her, ruling instead that she must wait until the child is born.

Shawnna Hughes' husband was convicted of abuse in 2002. She separated from him after the attack and filed for divorce last April. She later became pregnant by another man and is due in March.

Her husband, Carlos, never contested the divorce, and the court commissioner approved it in October. But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce. "

Only with love can we win a war

Yesterday, I had a very interesting conversation with a very bright woman. We were discussing how and why no one knew why our boys were in Afganistan. After determining it was because the country (ours) had originally caused all the conflict on that side of the world through the work of Lawrance of Arabia, that, the goverment didn't really want people to know. Of coarse, drugs are involved too.

Then, she said, that the Afgan's will always win, as did the Vietnamesse, and the Russians and the UK  (on their fronts in world war 2) because unlike the invaders, who are simply paid soldiers, the army on their own soil are fighting so no one kills their families, rapes their daughters, steals their home. For them, the fight is personal, where as, for us, and our men, it's just a job. The only persons the invader has to worry about is the man beside him, where as for the defender, he will either loose everything, kill the invaders, or die trying. What she said was true, only with love can we win a war.

What a wonderful Father's day

DADS HOUSE

Father-focused services are gradually gaining ground and this year a new service is due to open in London which will focus solely on lone fathers. Fresh on the scene, with registered charity status, Dads House wants to offer temporary accommodation for fathers and children — the first of its kind in the city.

In London alone, there are 16,473 "male lone parent households". In addition there are 180,366 fathers who are not living with their children and are classified as "absent fathers", according to national statistics updated in 2006. Figures from 2005 show there were 1.9 million single parents and 3.1 million dependent children in total, up to two-thirds of them living in rented accommodation. One in nine of the single parents is a father. Research suggests there are about 210,000 single fathers in the UK, with about 280,000 dependent children living with them.

Homes for Fathers and Families (“HOFF”) is a project aimed at providing the same degree of support for single fathers as is available for single mothers in the UK. Fathers who look after their children on their own have much the same difficulties as mothers. In addition they are not necessarily as naturally gifted when it comes to caring for their children, nor are they seen as needing help, for example by employers in regard to time off or flexibility in working hours. As a result, in many cases, their children suffer.

for more, click here:

http://www.dadshouse.org.uk/

...Well that was a waste of poaching

"African and Asian elephants are under threat from poachers who kill them for their ivory tusks.

 An international five-year moratorium on ivory trading was agreed in 1989, the year when President Moi publicly burned a large pile of ivory in Nairobi National Park under the direction of Kenya Wildlife Service's Dr Richard Leakey."

So, the elephants had been poached for the ivory, which is obviously poached because it has a use (otherwise why are these stupid men taking on the largest mammals on the planet?) so, instead of saving the ivory you have ready for the restrictions on ivory trade, to have a reserve for the demand, and therefore stop extra poaching, you burn the ivory that elephants had already been killed for? Clever...

PS
I took the picture myself (:

The scapgoats of insanity

Throughout western society, and probably eastern too, there is a stereotype on the stereotype of which we label "emo". The goths with feelings, the depressed, the sad, lonely teenager hiding behind thick eyeliner and dark fringes, supposedly prone to self harm. Now, being a teenager, I can name you hundreds of people who would argue against that, but is it true? In Russia, it was certainly considered to be so, and law's were passed against such sub-cultures, as it was considered dangerous. I'm not here to debate about that though, what I'm here to debate is, is thing singular stereotype simply taking the blame?

It is true that an alarming amount of teenagers who consider themselves to be amongst the darker stereotypes and social groups to resort to drugs, and self harm, but surly, they cannot be the only ones. In the UK, 84% of teenagers admitted to either self harming, or knowing of someone who had, now, you cannot tell me that all 84% were dressed in black skinny jeans. Has the label of someone who will self harm been thrown onto the most likely candidate to cover this up? If so, what effect is that having on the others?

People would perhaps consider the "popular girls" to be in hospital with an eating disorder, so does that make getting help harder for them? No such studies, to my knowledge, and therefore google have been carried out, so how would we know? Seeing as they play such an important (although, definitely not right) role in a teenage life, should sub-cultures and stereotypes be taken into account, or is it safer to ignore the lot? Just how big of an effect do clothes have on our mental health?

Meeting expectations...it's bone crushing

It has been an on going tradition in China, that, to keep women's feet small, and therefore avoiding big feet, which is considered unattractive, little girls in China had their feet bandaged until they were seven to brake the bones and prevent growth. To my horror I find that it is still happening, and because this passes as tradition, nothing (or very little is done to stop it)

Most countries have charities, and organisations to prevent child abuse, but, it seems being labelled as tradition give such a horrid action a "get out of jail free card". But, realising this has raised another thought to mind, crushing the feet of young girls isn't the only "tradition" to seem immoral, but accepted anyway. Human sacrifice, the killing of animals for religious reasons, placing Guy Fawkes on a bonfire, the list is endless. Should we draw a line? Or should it be accepted, because it's tradition? Where does the line draw? Where does it stop? Should we stop?

It's (not) hopeless!

Mark Twain, one of America's most well known authors, famous for his quotes on life, such as :

A man is never more truthful than when he acknowledges himself a liar.

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.

A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.


A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.

Never even made it through elementary school.


Still feeling hopeless?

The life expectancy of a gold fish is, your lucky, really lucky, ten years. Fred, the goldfish lived to 41.

Surly that's proof enough that no matter what happens, there's hope. Even if all the doctors, politicians, and priests think otherwise, there's still hope, and if there's hope their happiness. (: