Archive
Lest We Forget
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
- John McCrae, May 1915
Man Sues Facebook
The father of a 12 year old is suing Facebook because his daughter keeps creating accounts and posting sexually explicit photos of herself. In addition to that she was also posting personal information 
online such as: her cell phone number, address, and school. The girl was in the care of a voluntary care center. He is suing Facebook because he says that Facebook is not reinforcing it’s own age policy. The argument is being made that Facebook is creating an environment where ”a risk of sexual and physical harm for the child” and is therefore being negligent.
The court papers say that the father will “seek an injunction ordering Facebook to close down his daughter’s account and stop her from opening another one”. Furthermore the papers say that if that doesn’t happen, he “will seek an injunction to stop Facebook from operating in Northern Ireland”. Good luck to that, unrealistic much?
In a statement the father says “I was horrified when I saw the photographs my daughter had posted of herself on the site. She is far too young to understand what she is doing. She suffers problems and engages in self-destructive behavior. She is currently receiving counseling.”
So where does the responsibility belong? On the parents or on the social networking sites?
I think Facebook has some issues to work out, especially when it comes to privacy. But I don’t think that you can hold the company responsible if your child is acting irresponsibly on the internet. Call me crazy but is it not the responsibility of her father to ensure he knows what his child is doing? Am I the only one here that has a problem with this man? His lawyer argues An age check, like asking for a passport number, would be a simple measure for Facebook to implement.” First of all, Facebook doesn’t need my passport number or drivers license number. Second, what about those people who don’t have a passport number, or drivers license? And Third, we need to really examine how much responsibility Facebook should be taking on for the behaviours of your children.
This child obviously has other issues that need to be addressed, and her problem is not going to be solved because you find away from keeping her from accessing Facebook. She could upload those pictures online at other sites simply by putting in a fake birthday. Also, if she is 12 now I can only assume that she’ll be 13 within the next year and will be back at it with the same behaivour (since Facebook says you must be 13 years of age to sign up). This child is posting sexual pictures of herself on the internet. Should we not be focusing on the why? Should her parents not be trying to stop her from doing this? If she is living at a care center why has her internet not been cut for her own protection? Why aren’t we asking all these questions?
Don’t get me wrong I understand that as a parent you can’t stop your child from doing everything especially in this technology enhanced world. Which is why I say if it weren’t Facebook it would be something else. This child clearly needs some help. But parents need to take the responsibility in this age of technology to make their children understand about the dangers of online activity. It should be as normal as teaching a child not to take candy from a stranger, or to look both ways before crossing the street.
It’s interesting because over on babble.com parents with underage kids who had Facebook were criticizing a school principle who was calling for a ban on Facebook at schools and asking parents to take their children’s profiles down. Some of their responses were: “Get back to teaching”, “quit trying to usurp my authority”, “A school has no right to tell my child what he can and cannot do on his own time, in his own home.” And “will you stand for the school telling you what video games and music your child is permitted to play at home?” It would seem that there is infighting between parents, schools, and institutions about where responsibility lies.
My solution is you should all stop arguing with each other and protect your children, when you are teaching them about taking candy from strangers you should also be teaching them about the internet. Education is the key, and getting your children help when they need it.
A Frenchman is Ordered to Pay his Wife for Lack of Sex
A French man was ordered to pay his wife 10,000 Euros ($13962.00 Canadian) for apparently violating article 215 of the Civil Code in France. This code states that married couples “ must agree to a shared communal life”. A judge in France has ruled that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”. The wife in the case filed 
for divorce two years ago on the grounds that there was nothing happening between the sheets. The man claims that this is due to “tiredness and health problems”. These reasons aside a judge in southern France granted the divorce and said said the cause of the split was because of the man. The 51 year old appealed but the courts found in favour of his wife: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent. By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.” After the rulings the wife filed a lawsuit looking for compensation for the last 21 years of marriage.
What I find even more disturbing then the courts decision is the poll found on the story on the New York Daily News 58% of people agree with that. The poll asks readers “Should husbands or wives be made to pay money to spouse after divorce because of denying them sex?” . Options included: Yes- Yes, sex is an important and necessary part of a happy marriage. or No-No, men or women shouldn’t be expect to perform sexually just because they are married.
Does anyone else think this is as messed up as I do? This is not only messed up it opens the gates for other types of suites. Is everyone entitled to sue their significant other if their marriages fail? Could you then argue that your significant other changed and therefore are not the same person you entered into said contract with? Gained a few pounds? Better start working it off or you may be in violation of article 251 of the French civil code. Developed a medical problem? That’s OK as long as you are continuing your duties in said marriage. You might be rolling your eyes at my comparisons but think about it. You gaining a few pounds and becoming unattractive to your partner is just as messed up as “my partner developed a medical condition and will no longer perform between the sheets for me”.
What a Joke of a lawsuit.
Scientists Develop Date Rape Drug Detector
According to a news source two Scientists in Israel have developed a drink stirrer that when stirred into your drink will detect if there are drugs present. One of the scientists told AFP “You just dip it into your drink, it might actually look like a stirrer in the final production, it’s tiny, very tiny.” The scientist goes on to explain just how 
easy the device is to use and how it works: “The drug itself is reacting with this chemical formulation and the previously clear formula becomes dirty and when the light shines it you can detect it,” Ioffe said. “You don’t have to do anything but dip it in your drink.” They went onto say that they tested their device on a wide variety of drinks (pop and alcoholic beverages) and it was 100% effective when testing for GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid) and ketamine but they have yet to test it on the other popular date rape drug, Rohypnol.
The scientists have not yet decided how the device will notify people, ideas they have been kicking around include: lighting up, rotating, or sending a signal to your cell phone. “Maybe it will just light up or a part of it will rotate or maybe it will send a signal to your cell phone because you want to be discreet about it.”
My only criticism is the worry around being discreet. I understand you have no way of knowing who put these drugs in your drink but it seems to me if mine comes back positive I have nothing to be discreet about, someone tried to drug me. If we use this tool as a weapon against sick freaks maybe if we are not discreet about it some will be deterred from trying it in the first place. But if we are discreet with this tool these people will just try it anyway ( don’t get me wrong I know no amount of deterrence will work for everyone). However, if we stigmatize the use of the tool before it is even out women won’t want to use it out of fear of being labelled or told they are over reacting.
Another interesting point was brought up by Safer Campuses it could put an interesting twist on the bystander effect. If your drink comes back positive will some simply leave in order to be discreet and not embarrassed or do they instead speak up? Of course what happens with this goes back to if we’ve stigmatized the use of such a tool.
In any case the scientists say it could be commercially developed and on the market within a year. All they need is some financial backing. As someone who was drugged by a bartender I would totally buy this product.
