October 31, 2014 Leave a comment
Jon Stewart. All kinds of awesome. Watch.
Politics, parenting, science, education, and pretty much anything I find interesting
From a Halloween gallery in the Telegraph. Have a happy one. I’m excited as it is actually my son Evan’s favorite holiday. Yes, even more than Christmas (and he doesn’t even like candy half as much as I do).
The Queen meets children making Halloween cakes as she visits the new 68 bed YHA South Downs hostel in LewesPicture: Chris Jackson/Getty Images
Two of my children were predominantly breast feed the first year and two were not so I’m very open to arguments in all sides here, but one thing is very clear is that far too many breast feeding advocates are way, way overzealous. Due to a letter in Dear Prudence today, I came across this great column from a journalist who cannot breastfeed due to a cancer-related double mastectomy. First Dear Prudence:
My husband and I had a baby girl five months ago. Before she was born, we had a long conversation about breast-feeding versus formula and decided that breast-feeding was best and that I would try to do it for a year. The problem is that I’m completely miserable. I work full-time and it’s really stressful to fit pumping into my schedule. My breasts are constantly sore and I am always exhausted. Our daughter is beautiful and healthy and I want to do the right thing, but I don’t know how much longer I can bear this. My husband doesn’t want me to stop. Every time I mention formula, he gives me all the reasons why breast-feeding is best. He suggests I talk to our doctor or La Leche League. I don’t want to pump her full of chemicals or have her immune system suffer either, but I’m desperate. What can I do? I feel so guilty about all of it.
Mom, return the pump, toss the lactation bra, and get an economy-size container of formula. At great personal cost, you have breast-fed your daughter, she has gotten plenty of benefit, and now she would benefit even more from a happy, rested mother. Read Hanna Rosin’s article, “The Case Against Breast-Feeding,” which shows that the popular literature on breast-feeding overstates the scientific certainty of its superiority. In any case, you are doing no harm to your child by weaning her. To show how unhinged breast-feeding pressure has become, also read this story byWashington Post reporter Emily Wax-Thibodeaux about what happened after she recently gave birth. Several years ago, Wax-Thibodeaux was treated for breast cancer and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction. Of course, she couldn’t breast-feed, but even explaining her lack of mammary glands to the lactivists at the hospital couldn’t stop them from harassing her about trying! Breast-feeding is making you miserable, and that’s all your husband needs to know. He has no skin in this game, so don’t let him bully you. You both want what’s best for your daughter, and that means switching to formula.
Amen. And here’s some excerpts from the aforementioned column (well worth a read in its entirety):
The mothers in my “Baby & Me Yoga Fit,” class looked down from their tree poses, surprised as I poured some instant formula into a bottle.
Feeding our babies whenever they were in need was one of the most nurturing parts of the class. But with my evil formula, I was disrupting the fellow yogis in a way I never could have predicted.
“You know,” one mother said as I fed my little Lincoln, then 3 months old, “breast-feeding is optimal.”
I encountered this “breast is best” reaction at cafes, parks, even in some friends’ houses. One male friend even noticed that my husband was giving Lincoln a bottle in a Facebook posting and commented, “So you’re not breast-feeding? It’s better you know?”
The truth is, I’m a breast cancer survivor, and after a double mastectomy with reconstruction, which probably saved my life, I simply wasn’t able to breast-feed…
“You never gave up,” my husband said, laughing as he watched Lincoln gulp down his first two-ounce serving of formula, which my husband fed to him.
As the two of them cuddled afterward, I was in a mood that I can describe only as postpartum elation.
That is, until those I jokingly call the “breast-feeding nazis” came marching in to my room.
“You really should breast-feed,” the hospital’s lactation consultants, a.k.a. “lactivists,” said.
When I simply said, “I’m going to do formula,” they didn’t want to leave it at that.
So holding my day-old newborn on what was one of the most blissful days of my life, I had to tell the aggressive band of well-intentioned strangers my whole cancer saga…
“I can’t. I had breast cancer,” I said, looking down at Lincoln and stating proudly: “But I’m just so happy to be alive and be a mother after cancer.”
“Just try,” they advised. “Let’s hope you get some milk.”
“It may come out anyway, or through your armpits,” another advised later when I was doing the usual post-labor, slow-recovery walk through the hospital halls…
Around that time, a long-term study came out that compared pairs of siblings — one breast-fed, the other formula-fed. It debunked the “breast is better” mantra that I kept hearing: “Breast-feeding might be no more beneficial than bottle-feeding for 10 of 11 long-term health and well-being outcomes in children age 4 to 14,” the study found; those outcomes included body mass index, obesity, hyperactivity, reading comprehension, math ability and memory-based intelligence.
If you can breast feed, great, more power to you. But to have our culture essentially trying to bully women into it is ridiculous. Especially when much of the prior research on breast feeding was based on the fact that breast feeding mothers were higher SES. The sibling study is pretty compelling. Women need to do what’s best for them and what’s best for their baby. And in many cases that is formula feeding. And that’s okay.
October 31, 2014 2 Comments
Had an interesting discussion with colleagues at lunch today as to how much lattitude government officials should have in a genuine infectious disease emergency. Thing is, Ebola in the US is not an infectious disease emergency. The policy of quarantining non-symptomatic health care workers just doesn’t have any real science behind it. It’s the politics of fear. So, whether Maine has the right to quarantine Kacey Hickox or not, doing so is stupid policy. And stupid policy calls for civil disobedience. Hooray for Knox for taking a bike ride. And shame on the state of Maine for making it absurdly difficult to get a pizza delivered. Vox:
Now, it is Hickox’s pizza is being held captive. ABC News reports that a local pizza place called the Moose Shack (it gets 2.5 stars on Yelp) would like to send Hickox a pizza. This is a very thoughtful thing for a local business to do for a nurse who helped battle a vicious pandemic.
While Hickox told reporters last night she would enjoy a pizza, it still hasn’t been delivered. This is because the Moose Shack is still “in contact with the police department to see whether they can deliver a pizza.” We’re now at about 20 hours since the ask was made — and no pizza.
Yes, we’ve learned that Ebola can be transmitted in ways we didn’t expect before this outbreak had begun. But it is literally impossible to imagine how Ebola could be transmitted in this particular scenario, which involves a health worker who has twice tested negative for Ebola and a pizza delivery person who has not recently traveled to West Africa. The risk of transmission is non-existent because nobody involved in the exchange has Ebola.
This is arguably the height of absurdity in how the United States has treated returning health care workers. Hickox came home from a harrowing experience and she just wants to get a pizza from a local place that she likes. And for some reason, the Maine police’s response is not a clear yes, of course you should have access to a comfort food. So, hurry up and do the right thing, Maine: let Kaci Hickox have a pizza
Okay, it’s good that charities can figure out how to get more people to give money, but it’s also depressing how this works. Do they think that money magically gets to those in need without employees, staff, equipment, etc.? Vox:
In a study published in Science on Thursday, a team of researchers showed that giving people the opportunity to donate directly to a charity program — with a promise that the money wouldn’t go to overhead — was far more effective than either matching donations or letting donors know about existing seed money…
Many people have started paying attention to overhead costs — such as administrative expenses, salaries, rent, and fundraising costs — when evaluating a charity. It’s a big factor in evaluation tools like CharityWatch. For some, high overhead might be seen as a mark of an inefficient charity.
But in the Science study, the researchers found that this wasn’t what was going on. People don’t actually mind charities that have high overhead — they just don’t want to pay for that personally. And that’s likely because they want to have the personal feeling of having an impact and donating directly to a good cause.
The results were stunning. The researchers partnered with a real-life education charity campaign that solicited 40,000 Americans, who randomly received different letters in the mail. Some letters promised donors that none of their money would go toward overhead. These letters, it turns out, were three times as effective as a simple solicitation: [emphasis mine]
The piece goes on to give all sorts of very good reasons on why it is foolish to evaluate a charity on overhead expenses alone. But, again, what really kills me is the implicit idea of all these donors that money is not fungible.
I don’t think I can embed this video attacking my friends Sarah and Dan Crawford, but it really has to be seen to be believed. And House of Cards fans should love it.
Just follow the link and watch.
Some commentary from NC political strategist Gary Pearce:
Chad Barefoot must have asked his team: “What can we do that will so anger and offend women that they’ll vote AGAINST me?”They came up with an ad that has backfire potential approaching the “child molester” ad against Justice Robin Hudson. It portrays Sarah Crawford’s husband as a cigar-smoking lobbyist laughing about how his little woman will vote the way he tells her to in the Senate.Kimberly Reynolds of the Senate Democratic caucus pounced: “Evidently in Senator Barefoot’s world, corporate lobbyists rule and women are expected to simply follow their husbands’ orders.”The ad could be a caricature of the Negative Ad. It’s not only sexist and over-the-top, it’s hypocritical: Yes, Sarah’s husband is a lobbyist – for the League of Conservation Voters. And, I’m told, Chad Barefoot’s mother-in-law also is a lobbyist – for the outfit that passed Amendment One.In a district where women already are motivated – and make up a high number of swing voters – Chad & Co. may have pulled off one of the biggest bonehead plays of this election year.