jkjacq
Ruby
Posts: 21,742 Likes: 94,334
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 10:55:23 GMT -6
Post by jkjacq on Jul 10, 2018 10:55:23 GMT -6
I have a friend who is all over this issue for the community. I am trying to find more of what she has posted but this was her latest Lawrence Carter-Long 16 hrs ME TO NPR ON SEATTLE'S STRAW BAN: ALL of this confusion and controversy could have easily been avoided if disability advocates who are versed in public policy had been consulted--like they are supposed to be--beforehand rather than after the fact. Or if the city council had bothered to alert the Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities (which is why the group exists). Clearly no one did. And now Seattle has a PR problem that rivals the mess humans have created in the ocean that they have to clean up. The lesson: When disabled people are left out of public policy our expertise, our experience and our insights are left out as well. All of this could have been avoided. It wasn't. Both the city of Seattle and the SPU have to own that. In the end, this should be a lesson to other cities. And to companies like Starbucks. Include disabled people in the beginning of the process rather than as an afterthought and you'll not only discover better solutions - you'll also save yourselves a lot of avoidable headaches. ETA this was her repost, not HER words I should make that pretty clear. Yes, these situations could be a win-win, rather than leaving people with disabilities who need straws at a loss, if there was more communication in the planning. To Starbuck’s credit, they are planning to address this issue, but it hasn’t been widely reported on. Straw-less cups will be phased in over 5 years and there are plans to have straws available for those who need them. I would think Sbux would rethink the plastic stoppers before a straw. Dutch bros here puts a tiny sticker over the opening, Human Bean uses a chocolate covered espresso bean (which gets messy).
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 10:59:45 GMT -6
Post by cakewench on Jul 10, 2018 10:59:45 GMT -6
Trump's didn't pay someone who worked for him? I am shocked, I tell you.*
*Narrator: She was not shocked.
|
|
|
Post by shadesofgold on Jul 10, 2018 11:02:53 GMT -6
Also just FYI US hospitals base their policies on WHO guidelines. So all the push to be “baby friendly”, which is decidedly not family or mom friendly, is based on resolutions such as this one. And it’s led to domestic policies that seem to have forgotten that the mom is a patient and priority as well as just the baby. I don’t agree with threatening economic or military support withdrawal over this, but this has consequences in the US too that go beyond just formula. This is the first time I've heard that the "baby friendly" designation is responsible for maternal mortality. The overly baby-focused way obstetrics and postpartum care is delivered is one thing, and WHO evidence-based guidelines are another.
|
|
|
Post by shadesofgold on Jul 10, 2018 11:06:57 GMT -6
That's good. I hope they continue to have them available for older adults and people with disabilities for whom they are important tools. Edit: I see this has been addressed. Carry on.
|
|
Minerva
Ruby
Posts: 15,381 Likes: 67,036
|
Post by Minerva on Jul 10, 2018 11:22:49 GMT -6
Yes, these situations could be a win-win, rather than leaving people with disabilities who need straws at a loss, if there was more communication in the planning. To Starbuck’s credit, they are planning to address this issue, but it hasn’t been widely reported on. Straw-less cups will be phased in over 5 years and there are plans to have straws available for those who need them. I would think Sbux would rethink the plastic stoppers before a straw. Dutch bros here puts a tiny sticker over the opening, Human Bean uses a chocolate covered espresso bean (which gets messy). I think we need new solutions for both. This is the sort of problem we can innovate our way out of. I’ve seen the devastation that straws and plastic bags can do to ecosystems (and associated cultures) first hand in French Polynesia. It’s pretty easy to ignore here, since it’s so out of sight, but small plastics are ruining lives and communities in other parts of the world and pushing endangered species further toward the brink of extinction. We really do need to find solutions to the environmental problems that work for people with disabilities at a mass consumer level. Seattle really screwed up with their straw ban, but I firmly believe that we can do better in the future to avoid making it an either/or situation.
|
|
Minerva
Ruby
Posts: 15,381 Likes: 67,036
|
Post by Minerva on Jul 10, 2018 11:37:10 GMT -6
RAICES received over $20 million in donations through their Facebook campaign. They are in DC, prepared to cut a check for bond for all detained mothers separated from their children.
Amazing.
|
|
piratecat
Diamond
Posts: 36,005 Likes: 143,831
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 12:06:54 GMT -6
Post by piratecat on Jul 10, 2018 12:06:54 GMT -6
Yes, these situations could be a win-win, rather than leaving people with disabilities who need straws at a loss, if there was more communication in the planning. To Starbuck’s credit, they are planning to address this issue, but it hasn’t been widely reported on. Straw-less cups will be phased in over 5 years and there are plans to have straws available for those who need them. I would think Sbux would rethink the plastic stoppers before a straw. Dutch bros here puts a tiny sticker over the opening, Human Bean uses a chocolate covered espresso bean (which gets messy). I didn't know that this is a thing. That seems highly wasteful.
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 12:24:42 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 12:24:42 GMT -6
Ok, but the chocolate covered espresso bean is good for everyone. Let’s not take that away. 😉
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 12:26:25 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 12:26:25 GMT -6
I’m optimistic that Starbucks is taking a lead and also giving themselves enough time to develop a strategy. I hope they can come up with an inclusive solution and model the way for all the companies that can’t afford to innovate on their delivery systems. I hope they also look at cups and lids in the process.
|
|
jkjacq
Ruby
Posts: 21,742 Likes: 94,334
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 12:46:52 GMT -6
Post by jkjacq on Jul 10, 2018 12:46:52 GMT -6
RAICES received over $20 million in donations through their Facebook campaign. They are in DC, prepared to cut a check for bond for all detained mothers separated from their children. Amazing. RAICES is at The White House. 33 mins · Washington · Come join us outside the The White House for our #ReuniteEveryChild 24 Hour Citizens Filibuster. We’re here til 2pm est tomorrow and we want to hear your stories.
|
|
mb3
Sapphire
Posts: 4,500 Likes: 20,802
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 13:38:53 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by mb3 on Jul 10, 2018 13:38:53 GMT -6
Also just FYI US hospitals base their policies on WHO guidelines. So all the push to be “baby friendly”, which is decidedly not family or mom friendly, is based on resolutions such as this one. And it’s led to domestic policies that seem to have forgotten that the mom is a patient and priority as well as just the baby. I don’t agree with threatening economic or military support withdrawal over this, but this has consequences in the US too that go beyond just formula. This is the first time I've heard that the "baby friendly" designation is responsible for maternal mortality. The overly baby-focused way obstetrics and postpartum care is delivered is one thing, and WHO evidence-based guidelines are another. So you don’t see how WHO guidelines are the basis of “baby friendly policies”? I mean...I could give you annotated copies of my hospital’s policies, but then I’d have to tell you where I work. I assure you though, that the WHO guidelines are cited as the rationale behind the policies.
|
|
mb3
Sapphire
Posts: 4,500 Likes: 20,802
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 13:46:00 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by mb3 on Jul 10, 2018 13:46:00 GMT -6
This is the first time I've heard that the "baby friendly" designation is responsible for maternal mortality. The overly baby-focused way obstetrics and postpartum care is delivered is one thing, and WHO evidence-based guidelines are another. So you don’t see how WHO guidelines are the basis of “baby friendly policies”? I mean...I could give you annotated copies of my hospital’s policies, but then I’d have to tell you where I work. I assure you though, that the WHO guidelines are cited as the rationale behind the policies. Example: Mother has severe pre eclampsia and is on magnesium after 3 day induction. Mother is having hypertensive crisis requiring intravenous medications at same time as infant is hungry. Hospital mandates that before formula can be given mother must be educated that “breast is best” and, in some hospitals, sign a waiver that she understands this and is giving formula anyways. What do you think mom’s already elevated BP looks like now? Mortality? No, hopefully not. But it certainly has an effect on mom’s care and recovery, both physical and emotional.
|
|
|
Post by shadesofgold on Jul 10, 2018 13:46:42 GMT -6
This is the first time I've heard that the "baby friendly" designation is responsible for maternal mortality. The overly baby-focused way obstetrics and postpartum care is delivered is one thing, and WHO evidence-based guidelines are another. So you don’t see how WHO guidelines are the basis of “baby friendly policies”? I mean...I could give you annotated copies of my hospital’s policies, but then I’d have to tell you where I work. I assure you though, that the WHO guidelines are cited as the rationale behind the policies. Yes, they explicitly are behind "baby friendly" as a designation for hospitals. I'm saying that particular program isn't responsible for the problematic way obstetrics is practiced in the U.S. That's a whole bundle of problems driven by a million factors, including technology and institutional sexism. Most hospitals don't have that designation. We wouldn't have a national public health crisis if it only came down to that.
|
|
mb3
Sapphire
Posts: 4,500 Likes: 20,802
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 13:56:06 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by mb3 on Jul 10, 2018 13:56:06 GMT -6
So you don’t see how WHO guidelines are the basis of “baby friendly policies”? I mean...I could give you annotated copies of my hospital’s policies, but then I’d have to tell you where I work. I assure you though, that the WHO guidelines are cited as the rationale behind the policies. Yes, they explicitly are behind "baby friendly" as a designation for hospitals. I'm saying that particular program isn't responsible for the problematic way obstetrics is practiced in the U.S. That's a whole bundle of problems driven by a million factors, including technology and institutional sexism. Most hospitals don't have that designation. We wouldn't have a national public health crisis if it only came down to that. Well yes, but that wasn’t what I was addressing. I was specifically addressing the push for exclusive breastfeeding for everyone and how harmful that is. There should, IMO, be some recognition of the fact that formula is a viable alternative and mom’s shouldn’t be shamed for it.
|
|
|
Post by shadesofgold on Jul 10, 2018 14:01:16 GMT -6
Yes, they explicitly are behind "baby friendly" as a designation for hospitals. I'm saying that particular program isn't responsible for the problematic way obstetrics is practiced in the U.S. That's a whole bundle of problems driven by a million factors, including technology and institutional sexism. Most hospitals don't have that designation. We wouldn't have a national public health crisis if it only came down to that. Well yes, but that wasn’t what I was addressing. I was specifically addressing the push for exclusive breastfeeding for everyone and how harmful that is. There should, IMO, be some recognition of the fact that formula is a viable alternative and mom’s shouldn’t be shamed for it. Totally with you there.
|
|
mb3
Sapphire
Posts: 4,500 Likes: 20,802
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 14:08:52 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by mb3 on Jul 10, 2018 14:08:52 GMT -6
Well yes, but that wasn’t what I was addressing. I was specifically addressing the push for exclusive breastfeeding for everyone and how harmful that is. There should, IMO, be some recognition of the fact that formula is a viable alternative and mom’s shouldn’t be shamed for it. Totally with you there. Then I think we are on the same page here?
|
|
|
Post by shadesofgold on Jul 10, 2018 14:20:17 GMT -6
Then I think we are on the same page here? Partially. Probably not worth parsing it out.
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 14:22:19 GMT -6
Post by cakewench on Jul 10, 2018 14:22:19 GMT -6
Tiny violins to play while you sing like a canary:
|
|
|
Post by charlotte on Jul 10, 2018 14:41:58 GMT -6
I am glad I came in here today because I honestly had never considered the ways in which many “baby friendly” policies could potentially be harmful to mothers. It makes sense now that I’ve stopped to think about it, of course.
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 15:00:27 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 15:00:27 GMT -6
|
|
kitchen
Gold
Posts: 928 Likes: 4,667
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 15:11:44 GMT -6
Post by kitchen on Jul 10, 2018 15:11:44 GMT -6
Tiny violins to play while you sing like a canary: Consequences, Mr. Cohen, consequences. Who knew?
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 15:21:37 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by blurnette989 on Jul 10, 2018 15:21:37 GMT -6
Brad Heath (@bradheath) Tweeted: DOJ says one child under 5 can't be reunited because "the parent's location has been unknown for more than a year." Also, both the parent and the child who's been in the government's custody "might be U.S. citizens." t.co/gOCO0jCY8O Child in Custody might be a US citizen, the parent too.
|
|
jkjacq
Ruby
Posts: 21,742 Likes: 94,334
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 16:28:34 GMT -6
Post by jkjacq on Jul 10, 2018 16:28:34 GMT -6
This was interesting. It was part of MSNBCs poll (the last question) How long should justices serve on the Supreme Court?
34% Lifetime appointments 58% Term-limited appointments 3% Neither of these 5% I don't know
apparently people are unaware that they are appointed for lifetime to rule out pressure from the majority party.
Not that it matters any more because fucking mitch stole the seat. But whatevs.
I'm trying to decide if there is somewhere between lifetime and term limit that I would feel comfortable with. and I cant, although I could be convinced if we keep appointing not so old white dudes who think women/nonwhite/lgbt/anyonenotbornwithatrustfund dont matter.
|
|
|
Post by Uncaripswife on Jul 10, 2018 16:31:30 GMT -6
Brad Heath (@bradheath) Tweeted: DOJ says one child under 5 can't be reunited because "the parent's location has been unknown for more than a year." Also, both the parent and the child who's been in the government's custody "might be U.S. citizens." t.co/gOCO0jCY8O Child in Custody might be a US citizen, the parent too. Raaaaaaaaaaaage!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Uncaripswife on Jul 10, 2018 16:36:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 16:58:35 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by enchanted on Jul 10, 2018 16:58:35 GMT -6
This was interesting. It was part of MSNBCs poll (the last question) How long should justices serve on the Supreme Court? 34% Lifetime appointments 58% Term-limited appointments 3% Neither of these 5% I don't know apparently people are unaware that they are appointed for lifetime to rule out pressure from the majority party. Not that it matters any more because fucking mitch stole the seat. But whatevs. I'm trying to decide if there is somewhere between lifetime and term limit that I would feel comfortable with. and I cant, although I could be convinced if we keep appointing not so old white dudes who think women/nonwhite/lgbt/anyonenotbornwithatrustfund dont matter. I saw ten year terms like the director of the FBI limit. On first surface thought, I think I could get behind that, but justices would have to be fire-proof and also not allowed to retire except for health reasons.
|
|
|
7/8
Jul 10, 2018 17:09:01 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 17:09:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cakewench on Jul 10, 2018 20:24:03 GMT -6
In a Facebook fight with someone over faith in politics. Apparently wanting abortion and gay marriage to remain legal is forcing my secular beliefs on people of faith, but banning those things because of faith isn’t forcing your faith on others. Ok.
|
|
cmb
Sapphire
Posts: 4,604 Likes: 9,807
|
Post by cmb on Jul 11, 2018 3:34:47 GMT -6
In a Facebook fight with someone over faith in politics. Apparently wanting abortion and gay marriage to remain legal is forcing my secular beliefs on people of faith, but banning those things because of faith isn’t forcing your faith on others. Ok. The logic is strong with this one 😒🤦🏼♀️
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 3:54:27 GMT -6
I feel like the life term would be appropriate if the justices actually were not swayed by politics, but I feel like they are anyway so it seems problematic in practice.
I also sometimes wish that there was a mandatory retirement age. I know that’s probably age discrimination and not doable, and that it would cause a whole host of other issues, but I just feel for Ruth. Maybe she would like a couple of quiet years of retirement at some point?
|
|