The Traceycentric Universe

SILICON VALLEY'S VAPID LITTLE GEEK

2009-01-03T15:16:00.000-08:00

Barry Schnitt is an asshole. I have to admit that with the economy circling the drain and trying to keep track of who is killing who and why in the Middle East, I've been distracted. So forgive my being slow on the draw, but I'm awake and aware now. Facebook has been in the limelight of late (although the issue goes back for more than a year) for flagging and removing posted photos of women breastfeeding their children. According to the founder of Facebook, only certain photos fall into the category of "Obscene, Pornographic, or Sexually Explicit" and are thus deleted. My mind trying to conceive of the word "breastfeeding" being in the same sentence as "obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit" conjured up vivid images of patent leather nursing bras, half empty bottles of cheap liquor, maybe ashes falling from a cigarette in a mother's mouth into her baby's hair. Thankfully not. Mr. Schnitt is quoted on MSNBC stating "Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate the terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed". Areolas and nipples?! Apparently almost all of the photos that come under this scrutiny are brought to the attention of Facebook by other users complaints. Who are these "other" users? The family and friends of the lactating exhibitionist or maybe imbalanced puritans and perverts seeking these photos out? An interesting sociological question I'll probably never get the anwer to. But I digress, these mothers feel offended. They should feel more than that. In this Country I respect that you can have a website, and choose to or not to show anything you want (within the confines of the law). Far be it from me to demand anything more. This smacks of censorship though and even if you don't give a shit about Facebook or breastfeeding, you should give a shit about a group of idiots being able to inflict their repressed ideals on what is appropriate and what is not for YOU to see.

Interesting Facts from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm:

Health professionals and public health officials promote breastfeeding to improve infant health. Both mothers and children benefit from breast milk. Breast milk contains antibodies that protect infants from bacteria and viruses. Breastfed children have fewer ear infections, respiratory infections, urinary tract infections and have diarrhea less often. Infants who are exclusively breastfed tend to need fewer health care visits, prescriptions and hospitalizations resulting in a lower total medical care cost compared to never-breastfed infants. Breastfeeding also provides long-term preventative effects for the mother, including an earlier return to pre-pregnancy weight, reduced risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer and osteoporosis. According to the New York Times, approximately 70 percent of mothers start breastfeeding immediately after birth, but less than 20 percent of those moms are breastfeeding exclusively six months later. It is a national goal to increase the proportion of mothers who breastfeed their babies in the early postpartum period to 75 percent by the year 2010.

Forty states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands have laws with language specifically allowing women to breastfeed in any public or private location

Minnesota is the only State that specifically includes " that a mother may breastfeed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding".

Twenty one states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have laws related to breastfeeding in the workplace.

Puerto Rico requires shopping malls, airports, public service government centers and other select locations to have accessible areas designed for breastfeeding and diaper changing that are not bathrooms.

LOOK TO THE CHILDREN

2008-12-29T15:40:00.000-08:00

Somebody, anybody please please stop the attacks on Gaza. You don't have to be a political analyst (which I am not) or even hold a degree in basket weaving (not me either) to see that the only way there will ever be peace is to stop the bombing! Accuse me of being warm and fuzzy (ok, this one is me) but does it make sense to wall people in making them entirely dependent for scraps of life sustaining aid, that is at someone else's pleasure to give, and expect peace and goodwill?! The victims in the middle of all of this are starving, dehydrated, exhausted, terrified, injured and traumatized, and guess what else... the children of the next generation. Wouldn't it make more sense to feed and clothe and educate these children, thereby helping them to realize a future that doesn't involve blood and violence? Think about this: in this Country we know that if you grow up watching your parents beat the shit out of each other, and/or they beat the shit out of you that chances are you will grow up following that pattern. Is it that outrageous to extrapolate that no matter how many treaties, or Countries involved trying to get everyone to play nice won't last/work without considering the children...

SHOE THROWER WOULD LIKE SOME OF THAT FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

2008-12-29T14:48:00.000-08:00

Montadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi Journalist that attempted to wallop a fast ducking GWB with his shoes is requesting leniency from his Government. No one has seen him since that fateful moment, but it is reported on CNN that he's gone so far as to apologize and proclaim that his protest was "ugly and no excuse could be good enough to explain his actions". My first thought: Jesus, they have beaten the poor bastard worse than within an inch of his life or threatened his family...probably both. My second thought: Of course it was ugly, it was meant to be. The truth often is just that... UGLY. Hundreds of thousands of people aren't there anymore. Dead. Gone forever. Countless more are physically crippled and or emotionally gutted. It's a verifiable fact, you cannot go around setting fire to and blowing up a Country without it impacting the psyche of the people that are trying, just barely to exist there. In that context punishing a man for throwing his shoes or even his chair would be nothing less than ludicrous! FoxNews lauded the event and subsequent outcry in the streets (demanding the release of al- Zeidi) as proof positive that freedom of speech and Democracy is alive and thriving in Iraq. Apparently not so for Mr. al- Zeidi, he's sitting in jail potentially facing years of imprisonment for his moment of self actualized frustration, and though vicarious, the thinking world's moment too . Somebody let the Emperor know he was naked. It's pure irony that President Bush was not thrown under the same jail for the horror that he's unleashed on the people of Iraq. On most days I would say maybe it isn't the best idea to hurl your footwear at anyone's head but compared to what the lesser George has done to the human beings of Iraq, what is a pair of shoes?! Being a lover and not a fighter though, maybe instead of throwing shoes, they can collect them from the people that have been senselessly killed by GWB's war. It would be a sickening and impressive pile, but not an original idea. I seem to recall another War where that was done....