The Latinos are coming

Jon Stewart.  All kinds of awesome.  Watch.

Photo of the day

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

When breast isn’t best

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:

Dear Prudie,
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.

—Running Dry

Dear Running,
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.”

Silence.

“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.

My new hero

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

Video of the day

This 1000 fps surfing video is pretty much the coolest surfing video I’ve seen– and that’s saying something.  Definitely click through and watch in the highest definition possible.

Note to charitable givers: money if fungible

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.

House of Cards in NC

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.

Honestly, I don’t think it will actually change many votes either way, but the implicit sexism is indeed pretty powerful.  It’s hard to imagine the same ad arguing that the lobbyist wife would be telling the husband how to vote.

It’s also amusing to keep painting an environmental lobbyist as a shady dealer.  “Vote for clean air and clean water, Sarah!”  Otherwise, I’m sure she never would.

Less women are in office because women don’t want to run for office

Here’s a nice little video summarizing some of the most recent research on political campaigns especially a pretty cool little experiment showing that women are significantly less interested than men in engaging in a competitive campaign environment while be no less likely to volunteer overall.

And here’s a nice summary in the Upshot:

Research from two political scientists at the University of Pittsburgh suggests that women may be more “election averse” than men. Among men and women with similar qualifications, ambitions and political environments, the study said, “the fact that representatives are chosen by electoral means is enough to dissuade women from putting themselves forward as candidates.”

The study, by Kristin Kanthak and Jonathan Woon, both associate professors of political science, does not assert that this aversion is the sole cause for the gender gap among elected officials, nor that it represents an innate characteristic of women. But they place the election aversion theory among the variety of factors that have been cataloged by other research.

Drawing on earlier research on competition and women, Ms. Kanthak wondered whether aversion to competition extended to the political arena. “What if there is something about women that makes them not want to run for office that doesn’t have anything to do with external factors?” Ms. Kanthak said in an interview. “What if we could completely level the playing field — would women be as likely to run as men?”

The answer, according to the experiment they designed, is no. In the experiment, members of a group volunteered to do math problems (with the possibility of a reward) on behalf of their group. In some cases, the person doing the problems was selected at random from among the volunteers; in other cases, the group elected one of its volunteers to do the problems.

Men and women volunteered at the same rate when problem-doers were chosen at random, but not when they were chosen by election. (The replication data for the experiment is here.) Ms. Kanthak compared the aversion to becoming a candidate to that of asking for a raise: “If women aren’t willing to ask for raises, we shouldn’t be surprised that they’re not willing to ask for votes.”

Previous research on female candidates has identified several factors that cause women not to enter the political arena. A report released by researchers at American University in March 2013 concluded that the gender gap among elected officials was unlikely to be closed in the near future because young women have fewer political ambitions than young men.

External social factors, including traditional gender roles, exposure to political news and participation in organized sports, were among the experiences influencing young women not to pursue political careers, based on a survey of more than 2,100 college students. That survey found another factor: that “young women are less likely than young men to think they will be qualified to run for office.”

I’ve got a good friend running for state Senate and damn it is hard.  I cannot imagine anybody wanting to do this.  But given what we expect of women in our society it is no wonder than fewer of them than men want to undertake this.  It is certainly, interesting though, that to some degree it may well be a disinclination toward any  competitive electoral environment, even divorced from politics.

Just how deadly is Ebola?

I mentioned in a previous quick hits that at least one expert thinks that Ebola might only have a 10% fatality rate with first-world health care.  More on that from Jon Cohn today:

The relatively high survival rate of U.S. patients (7 of 9 with hopefully 8 soon) so far could reflect a bunch of factors, like age or the small sample size. That is one reason not to get carried away and assume the standard regimen can save all patients. It can’t. But physicians and public health experts say it should be able to save most of them. “An Ebola diagnosis need not be a death sentence,” Paul Farmer, an infectious disease specialist at Harvard, wrote in an influential essay for the London Review of Books. “If patients are promptly diagnosed and receive aggressive supportive care—including fluid resuscitation, electrolyte replacement and blood products—the great majority, as many as 90 percent should survive.”…

The higher death rate has a relatively simple explanation, one familiar to anybody who has studied health disparities around the world. Health care facilities in the affected countries lack what Farmer has identified as the four S’s: Staff, stuff, space and systems. Except in the most developed areas, the clinics and hospitals don’t have access to even routine medications, common to any American emergency room, let alone newfangled medicines like ZMapp. They may also lack the standard diagnostic tools necessary to adjust treatments. “Right now, many [Ebola treatment units overseas] are not monitoring electrolytes including sodium, potassium, and calcium that are essential to deliver accurate and adequate care,” says Charles van der Horst, an infectious disease specialist at the University of North Carolina.

Of course, even those facilities with the right drugs lack supply and capacity to handle the patient load.

There’s also a very nice explainer over at Vox on why we are so much more successful at treating the disease in America than in Africa.  What I was especially interested to learn was that in large part Ebola kills you through fluid loss leading to organ failure.  All the vomiting, diarrhea, etc., mean that you lose water faster than you can take it in.  Give a person enough IV fluids, restore electrolytes, and thereby keep blood pressure up and organs functioning and you stand a good chance of hanging in there long enough for your immune system to fight off the disease.  Absent those things (i.e., health care in a deeply impoverished nation) and you are in a lot of trouble.  Of course, Cohn’s point is that we could be doing a lot more to help Africans keep infected people from dying.  Ebola is certainly a super-scary and horrible disease, but the evidence seems pretty clear it does not have to be nearly as fatal as it currently is in the effected nations.

Photo of the day

One of my students shared  with me this awesome long exposure of Rocky Mountain National Park

Joe Bond

 

The scale of the solar system

Thanks to Vox, I discovered this site with some of the coolest images I’ve seen.  A whole series of images by John Brady showing the scale of objects in our solar system.  Here’s two– definitely check them all out.  So, so cool.  Can’t wait to show this to my boys.

North America and Canada is dwarfed by the immensity of Jupiter

How the United States and Canada would measure up to Mars

 

Teachers on the Common Core

Gallup also took a look at what teachers specifically think about the Common Core.  As it turns out, they are pretty split.  But just to show how damn important partisanship is, Republican teachers (presumably, regardless of classroom experiences) are far more negative than Democratic teachers:

That’s really pretty amazing to presumably see political ideology trump actual experiences in the classroom.  What I also find quite interesting (and encouraging) is that the teachers most familiar with the Common Core are the most supportive:

Finally, it is also interesting to see the strong support for actual national standards:

Teachers were given an opportunity on the poll to state what they consider to be the most positive aspect of the Common Core, as well as the most negative aspect.

These open-ended responses paint an unambiguous picture of what teachers consider to be the most positive aspect, as 56% of all public school teachers say that sharing the same standards across states is the main advantage. This is followed by 12% saying the Common Core fosters critical thinking, and 10% saying it sets higher standards or is more rigorous.

So, regardless of the actual nature of the standards, teachers seem to feel quite strongly that national standards are very much a good idea.  Alas, the Republican party has made it quite clear it feels differently.  Because, you know, algebra functions so differently depending upon what state you are in.