Breastfeed in the closet?

Having breastfed and used a bottle with our many children, I found the arguments why women should not "be allowed to breastfeed in public" astonishing. Enjoy this foray into why asking breastfeeding women to cloister themselves is equal to a human rights violation for both mother and child...as well as a look at why the "against" arguments are anatomically incorrect.

Segregation is equivalent to assigning a lower class ranking to breastfeeding mothers for choosing the best for their children.

Proponents of public breastfeeding stand on the time-tested argument of breast milk's natural and nutritionally unequalled content as the perfect food for babies delivered in the most convenient, natural way. Feeding directly from the breast is how all other mammals distribute milk.

Breastfeeding mothers are the largest proponents because they have more intimate knowledge than any other in the argument arena.

Breastfeeding desensitizes the breast. After nursing an infant, women are unlikely to receive any sexual stimulation from the breast. This is the natural maturation of the breast and the maternal reception of the nervous signals.

Prior to birth, the breast has not experienced nervous stimuli such as the let down reflex, correct latching or a baby's natural pecking signal. Once these signals are received for the first time, the breast interprets all other signals thereafter as prompts to perform or incidental contact to be ignored.

Societal taboo attached to an sexualized image is mistakenly associated with breastfeeding. Suckling the breast is not a sexual act for the mother.

Opponents believe the nipple covered by the baby's lips is vile, embarrassing, and cause for shame. Ironically, the nipple covered with a smaller amount of spandex is beautiful, sells products and is to be coveted.

These opponents do not take into consideration the function of the breast. In fact, the breast's main purpose is the nourishment of offspring. The secondary issue of bonding is the proximity of the breast to the mother's heartbeat. This anatomical design is of note.

And there is more...read on.

Visit Virginia's Dream. International shipping available on request.

Punishment for cyber crime

Cyber crime never entered the minds of the founding fathers, yet its prevalence has far outpaced the laws that govern it. Virtual crime is not provable under most criminal statutes. So what should be done?

Crimes of theft are punishable according to the value of the items stolen and the violence of the manner in which they were stolen. Theft of information presents the cyber criminal with the perfect loophole. The defense argues that words have no value and sitting in front of a keyboard typing is not violent. The veracity of those statements can be disproved easily.

If the information had no value, why did the hacker take money for the information? If the act was not violent, why are the ramifications of the action devastating to the victims?

Intellectual property laws protect only work product such as research and creative endeavors. An address is not considered work product, and is not protected. So what of the hacker who steals addresses from jewelry stores and sells them to jewel thieves? They are guilty of the facilitation of a crime, should one be committed, yet their actions are not criminal in and of themselves.

To sew this loophole closed would not require the drafting of years' worth of new legislation, but instead the adaptation of existing laws in minute ways. Consider the addition of the verbiage "or any personal, medical, corporate or financial information" to the standard property theft laws. This would encompass nearly all current cyber theft crime.

Take away the water that the phisherman bait with enticing emails. Phishing is the same crime as attempted robbery, larceny or burglary. Dropping a few phisherman behind bars, with payment of restitution and fines required, would reduce the number of retirees and barely-computer-literates parting with pensions and savings. Current mail fraud statutes should be expanded with the inclusion of "or electronic means". Another seam in place.

Defense will argue then that the crime was not committed in the jurisdiction of the Court prosecuting the defendant. With the simple addition of the verbiage "against any person, persons or corporate entity within the jurisdiction" to the standard theft laws. Another hole disappears.

Extradition will be the last stumbling block left to the global community. Should not the contract of all whose access the Internet include a clause whereby the user agrees that such access will not be against the laws of the jurisdiction of the sites to which the user visits? These laws are beginning to look less like a net.

With the addition of cyber crime to the existing laws, hackers who would never dream of robbing a store will not dream of robbing a database. Punishments would be equal for cyber crime as they are for flesh and blood crime.

What of the victims? The United States has laws governing the dissemination of pornography to minors and laws that protect the victims that are lured off of the Internet into flesh and blood crime. What about the victims whose credit has been thrashed? Restoration of their credit is the least that can be done for these victims, but the restoration of their reputation cannot be accomplished. What of their hardship while they had not the credit to conduct their lives?

Interpol's adoption of these laws would enable jurisdictions to successfully prosecute the civil actions under these laws. NATO's endorsement of these laws would add more venom to the punishments. As a global community, it is high time that we act as one to protect our citizenry, regardless of location.

Visit Virginia's Dream. International shipping available on request.

Blog on the move....

Check out the new publications stemming from this blog....

Kids & Cars: Child Driveway Safety Tips

Vehicle Fires: Why They Happen & What to Do

Seat Belts on School Buses: Why the Law Should Change

Read more content by Ann Marie Dwyer by visiting any of these links. Comment on what you read! Add a tweet to your twitter about VA's Dream!

Just a look ahead...........

More money saving tips
More environmental tips
More consequences to rising prices

After that, I will be beginning an in depth look into the plight of rural America. Stay Tuned!

Visit Virginia's Dream. International shipping available on request.

Why School Bus Seat Belt Laws Need to Change

School buses manufactured in the United States after 1985 are equipped with seat belts. Each state has the responsibility for passing and enforcing seat belt laws.

Bluebird is the largest school bus manufacturer. Although its safety belts began appearing in smaller, van-type buses as early as 1978, it did not begin installing seat belts in all vehicles until the mid '80s.

Since the mid-1990s, seat belts in new school buses have changed from being one belt per seat to one belt per occupant. This was a measure adopted to keep schools from over crowding buses. Single seat belts reinforced the concept that the bus is safest at or below the recommended number of occupants.

State seat belt laws are not changed often. The proceeds from violations of the laws are normally earmarked for road repair, which is subsidized by the Federal government, enforcing the laws on school buses has not been priority. Considering the US driving record of school bus drivers, there has been no public outcry for a change in the law in nearly two decades.

In the 80s, staunch advocates against seat belts for school buses mounted a successful campaign to block a Federal incentive for states which passed school bus seat belt laws. Citing reasons like belt-slippage decapitation, individual weight differences and (faulty) free fall information, these advocates believed that seat belts posed more danger than safety.

States which were proposing the legislation lost their incentive to pass the measure, as there was no longer any profit. The official press release from the spin doctors was that school bus seat belts were not proven to decrease the injury to the riders in the crash investigations. What was removed from the press release was the investigation findings were biased toward fatality: No test dummy survived any of the crashes, with or without a seat belt.

Further supporting the abandonment of the legislation, this statement also issued: Constitutionality of regulating parochial schools is a question as yet unanswered by the Supreme Court. This was, in totality, because no such case existed. Parochial schools have never filed suit to avoid adherence to any state education or safety regulation to date.

Yet, schools, both public and parochial, and parents continued to advocate for their students' safety directly to the school bus manufacturers. This lead to the installation of seat belts.

Parochial schools, individually, may require their students to wear seat belts. In the absence of state legislation, public schools may not.

Until the parents demand that the law be changed regardless of the profit margin, child safety will take the proverbial backseat in state legislatures.

Visit Virginia's Dream. International shipping available on request.