The Soccer Mom Vote

Principle or Pragmatism on Immigration?

The Senate defeated President Bush's attempt at immigration reform after lengthy wrangling and debate. This may be the end of the matter on the Senate floor, but immigration remains a hot topic in the Presidential race.

That improved border security and additional enforcement resources are are needed, there is little doubt. The question that remains is what to do about the estimated 12 million undocumented, illegal, immigrants who are already here.

Border states like Texas, California, and New Mexico have long complained that illegal immigration was putting an unsustainable burden on education and healthcare systems. Many of these people may be working, but neither they nor their employer contribute payroll taxes to the state or federal coffers. The pragmatic thing to do would be to get these workers on the taxrolls. Employers would have to pay a competitive wage, we wouldn't have thousands of people hiding from the census takers, and federal money for education and healthcare could be distributed more realistically.

But efforts to accomplish this were derailed by people seeking to deny "amnesty" to a population they perceived as having broken the law.

And yet no one seem to know what that law really is. The path to citizenship may be one of the most confusing set of rules and regulations in this country short of the tax code. Here in Massachusetts, we had the wife of a missing U.S. soldier threatened with deportation. Senators Kerry and Kennedy intervened, but wouldn't you have thought that marrying a U. S. citizen would have made her one too? Apparently not.

My second internationally adopted child received a certificate of citizenship automatically about three months after he got here, but if I want to get that same document for my first child, I have to fill out yet another form and pay $200.

And then there's my Nicaraguan college roommate, here on a student visa and a full scholarship. Her application for citizenship was denied in the late 80s because she "hadn't done anything illegal." She, like many people who are here illegally, simply chose to overstay her visa until she could find sponsorship.

Attempts to reform this process were not much better - they included a point-based system for determining the merit of a visa application (doctors and MBAs are close to the top of the list - no longer do we really want, the tired, poor and huddled masses), an amendment suggesting that immigrants "go home" for two years before applying to get back in, and apparently no restriction on people who have broken other laws such as drunk driving.

But the biggest question for me was really not addressed in any of the debate in the legislature or in the media. Even if it was realistic to deport 12 million people, how do we handle enforcement in a humane manner?  Raiding a place of employment and dumping immigrants' kids into the foster care system can't possibly be the right answer. Neither can sweeping mothers off the streets while they are bringing their kids to school.

Can't we do better than this?

Protecting the Gift

My mother is one of three girls and while she was growing up both sisters were victims of violence. Her mother had also been attacked when pregnant in a seemingly random act (the details are sketchy, but it had to do with a man and a hammer, so it wasn't good). She survived as did her unborn child, but the lesson of violence and fear stained those women forever. Her sisters both ended up in abusive relationships, over and over again. Her mother was emotionally protective and at some times cold, shut off from the potential violence around her. My mother was the only one to make it to adulthood without a man putting hands on her violently, but she was constantly afraid.

"Look here." She'd tell me when I was a teenager, pointing at a newspaper article, "A girl your age was raped not too far from here. Her description matches you perfectly. You need to be more careful!" I'd always roll my eyes at her in exasperation. Everyone who was a victim looked just like me, if you asked my mother.

My upbringing was full of threats, real or imagined it didn't matter to my mother. Occasionally she threw in some really useful tips. She taught me that when in public I should "walk like an exclamation point, not like a question mark" to show confidence and power. She taught me to cultivate my instincts and to get the hell out of a situation if it felt at all hinky.  She taught me to blame her if needed, teaching me to speak the words, "My mom said no" even if I hadn't yet asked her, but just felt it would be a bad idea on some level. My father taught me practical advice as well. "You've got no more than three hits, kido. If you can't stop a man from hurting you in three hits, you're toast. Hit him here (balls), here (eyes) and here (throat or knee, depending on what was available). Do it fast and with all your might. Then run like hell. Got it?"

Oh yeah, I had it.

Somehow I managed to make it through without learning to live in constant fear. And I was never hurt by a man, despite attempts. One tried when I was about six and my instincts came alive with fear, telling me to stay out of reach of the guy on the motorcycle trying to get me to come near. Another tried when I was ten and got a face full of small fists and a yell so loud, you wouldn't have thought a child that size could contain such a powerful scream. In high school a seemingly harmless kid tried to get control of me in a hallway, pushing me up against the lockers (I still don't know why). I hit him so hard that he doubled over from the pain while I walked off down the hallway, calm on the outside but a flurry of panic on the inside.

I did all of these things without thought and most likely because of the fear my mother taught me. As a mother of two girls, I want them to have the same ability to protect themselves that I learned, but I'd like to teach it to them in a way that is full of power, rather than full of needless fear. I want them to grow up strong and confident and able to protect themselves but without feeling the need to worry all the time.

Enter Gavin de Becker's book, Protecting the Gift: Keeping Children and Teenagers Safe (and Parents Sane).  De Becker, who has years of experience in criminal behavior and boasts such clients as the C.I.A., the US Supreme Court and is a three-time presidential appointee (read his full bio here), gives practical tips and violent predictors so that you can worry less about the things that do not matter and focus on the things that do.  He shows us how conventional wisdom ("Don't talk to strangers") does not actually help us and instead gives simple and practical advice to keep yourself and your children free of harm and able to act appropriately when trouble arises. 

But it was the following passage that made me realize how easily we can make a simple, "it takes a village" effort to protect ourselves in every day ways.  He writes:

"I encourage mothers to ask other women for help when they need it, and it's likewise safer to accept an offer from a woman than from a man.  (Unfortunately, women rarely make such offers to other women, and I wish more would.)"

His point is that if we, as women, simply offered help when we see a need we can revolutionize safety in our society. Too often we allow our fellow sisters to struggle and when we do, we allow them to become vulnerable to a predator.  Imagine that the simple act of offering help (and accepting a "no" graciously if needed) can reduce crime.  Seems crazy, no?  But it is true.  And simple.  And something you can do RIGHT NOW, today, without reading a book, or worrying, or fear. 

I highly recommend de Becker's book as well as it's fantastic predecessor The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence.  I promise that you will learn to worry LESS about the safety of your children and yourself while protecting all of you even better.  But if nothing else, I challenge you to offer help to a woman in need, even if it's simply to open a door as she struggles with her groceries and/or her children.  Go do it today and let me know how it felt.  I want to hear the stories of how you changed the world today.

Anonymity Breeds Mischief

The other day, I was in the kitchen when my son, who is nearly four years old, walked in carrying my keys. He entered the room intently, and scanned the room for me. He didn’t see me. Like any good mother, I kept quiet to see what he was up to.

He went around the perimeter of the kitchen opening each drawer that he could reach, until I suppose he found the right one. He dropped my keys in, closed the drawer, and turned around to find me. Standing right behind him. He was grinning from ear to ear. And I was too. I couldn’t help myself.

“WHAT. Are you doing, little man?” I asked him. Busted. He shrieked and ran from the kitchen cackling, my keys tucked away with the forks and spoons and several other drawers left wide open.

I don’t know how many times he has entered a room carrying my keys and found me there, to which I always say, “Those are my keys. May I have them?” And he always gives them to me eagerly as if that was his only intention. He answers, “Mommy’s keys! Not a toy.” And then he goes about his business.

But apparently when he thinks he’s alone, invisible, anonymous, let the mischief begin. Dude. Don't mess with my keys. Not even if you're a cute little dude. Maybe that’s just human nature. Unfortunately, children grow up and given anonymity and opportunity, the behavior that sometimes follows isn’t always so innocent or endearing. Quite the opposite.   

In late April, Ellen Nakashima reported for the Washington Post that more and more women are on the receiving end of sexual harassment via the Internet, particularly as they become more successful in the blogosphere. Nakashima said:

“Men are harassed too, and lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly sexually threatening terms -- a trend that was first evident in chat rooms in the early 1990s and is now moving to the blogosphere...”

The article highlighted one blogger and her experience in particular. Kathy Sierra blogged very successfully at Creating Passionate Users until some very serious sexual threats pushed her to stop posting there until she decides what to do next.

I am not proposing we humans are inherently bad, but I think most tend to behave differently when their anonymity is sure. Would you do EXACTLY the same thing if you found a hundred dollar bill in a crowded parking lot during daylight hours as you would if you found it all alone at midnight? Well, would you?

Anonymity allows Internet users to speak uncensored with not only no fear of being rebuffed, but a security that they can’t even be responded to. It’s not a fair playing field. Don’t get me wrong, I see lots of situations where anonymous comments are useful and would even be preferable. There are some sites that only allow anonymous comments to provide a kind of confessional validation of sorts for those who post there. That works well for those sites. But in my opinion, in a forum where dialogue is key, as it is here, anonymous comments would be counterproductive.

The Rules of the Game here at the Soccer Mom Vote explicitly state that we do not allow anonymous comments: “If you get to comment to us, we get to respond to you. Any comments that do not include a valid e-mail address and/or URL will be deleted.”

I think that is more than fair. And disabling one’s anonymity seems to be a reasonable first step toward demanding decent conduct from people. Some folks don’t agree and feel that removing one’s right to anonymity could be infringing upon rights of free speech.

I’m a big fan of free speech. I’m not saying you can’t say whatever you want to. It is your right. It’s mine too. I’m just saying, if you’re going to say it, say it directly to my face. And say it from a place where I can plainly see you. Please say it in such a way that I can clearly hear you and understand you. And please, please don't touch my keys.

Breeder

In September, we gave birth to our 6^th child.

“How many children do you have?”  I was both taken aback and tickled when I first heard that--when I had 3 children.  I told my friend Lisa, who had four, how I reacted and she couldn’t stop laughing. 
 
She talked about how hard it is to find a hotel for her whole family.  I didn’t believe her until, when we had four children, I was told by Cedar Point that we could only fit all six of us in a room because the youngest was 1.

It is challenging having a larger family in a downsized world. 
 
We outgrew our grocery store.  It was a large store to my family of four growing up.  Now my mother’s grocery store looks like a convenience store to me.  We shop at a warehouse.
 
Now when I go out with my five children, most people don’t hide the fact that they’re counting heads.  Yeah, that’s right, it’s five children. And, I might add, all by the same mother and father.

 
Debates about choice and life don’t go beyond platitudes.  What does choice actually look like?  Does it look like choosing to have as many children as you can?  Does it look like sacrificing for your family? Or does it look like limiting your family size?  Sacrificing your children for your stuff? 
 
In September, when we gave birth to our 6^th child, she was injured at birth, and had severe brain damage.  She couldn’t breathe on her own for several weeks.  We were given a choice: take her off the equipment and see how she fared on her own, keep her alive by any means necessary, take her home and take care of her ourselves, or institutionalize her. 
 
Weighty choices, especially while we were still reeling from a nightmarish birth experience.  Suddenly, the life/choice debate was no longer semantic.  It was real.  And I wanted that baby.  I didn’t pump my milk because, as they say, ‘breast is best.’  I pumped for 8 hours a day because I desperately wanted to nurse my baby.  And she was on a feeding tube.  And drinking milk made it harder for her to breathe. 
 
And I still wanted that baby.  It didn’t matter that I already had 5 healthy children at home.  And it wasn’t unfair to them.  They loved her too.  I have never seen children exercise such warmth and compassion as my children did to their little sister.  My two- year old son tenderly took her hand and said, ‘good to meet you, Yasha,’ when we brought her home from the hospital at 5 weeks old. 
 
We hugged her, kissed her, and prayed for our baby girl constantly for 6 ½ months.  And then she died.  My arms ache for her.
 
Choice? We shouldn’t take life and death so cavalierly.

Would you ever think to ask...

...if there are loaded guns in the home of your child's new playmate?

I posted about this topic on my personal site two weeks ago, drawing comments from all over the world, representing a wide range of positions on gun control.  It was certainly illuminating.

A lot of people hadn't considered the topic before as it related to their children's playmates.  Many commenters who live in Canada and Australia expressed surprise that such a question might even come up, given that guns are so rare (except hunting rifles) in their countries.  On the other hand, commenters in Texas and Louisiana and even Brooklyn spoke of the prevalence of guns in their areas.  Spouses of police officers spoke up to describe how they secure their service revolvers.

Some commenters at Sk*rt (where I cross-posted) resorted to snap judgment - "You ask the question because that is your responsibility as a good parent."  I have to wonder if they've ever asked the question themselves.

One commenter on my personal site really threw me for a loop.  He stated that: "I don’t see the utility of the question. If I had a gun, and I knew you would be uncomfortable with it, I’d just lie to you."  I think that sort of dishonesty is an even bigger problem than a gun.

In spite of the statistics cited by some of my commenters outside the US, I still have to wonder if tougher regulation would make a difference in gun ownership and accidental gun discharges.  Drugs are illegal - not even regulated - and yet the government still spends a great deal counteracting drug commerce.  Is it making a difference?  It doesn't seem so.

Likewise, I tend to think that tougher regulation of guns - or even outlawing ownership of handguns by private citizens - would suck funding without much to show for it.  People would still obtain (and traffic) guns just as they currently obtain (and traffic) drugs.

Which leads me to wonder why people keep handguns in their homes.  I tend to think it's because they feel unsafe, as self-defense is a common reason cited by gun owners.  But why do they feel unsafe?  Does it come down to the prevalence of crime - or even the possibility of crime (for those in areas that wouldn't be considered particularly dangerous)?

Instead of tougher gun regulation, which addresses the symptom, what about addressing the probable cause - namely, that people often don't feel safe?  That they aren't confident in law enforcement's ability or willingness to enforce the law - not just to catch those who have already committed crimes, but to deter those who may be considering committing a crime?

Instead of creating more laws, what about expanding our police forces?  Better equipment, better training, working more closely with private citizens in their neighborhoods to reduce the probability of crime.  And better pay, of course.

Granted, such changes require funding.  But I'd bet that the money would be much better spent on deterrence than on prosecuting offenders.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

Last Tuesday I got to see Michael Pollan speak at Revelle Forum at UCSD (the website where I registered for the forum cautioned to get there early so I was there a half an hour early with some magazines which I got to read for a full half hour, uninterrupted, it was heaven).  I had read The Omnivore's Dilemma earlier this year after hearing about it on NPR and was profoundly affected by it, so much so that I developed a full-blown crush on Pollan (still crushing hard, by the way).  But it wasn't until I saw Michael Pollan speak at the that I really GOT it.  Until I read The Omnivore's Dilemma I had been smug and complacent in my belief that as long as I was eating organic, I was not only doing the right thing for my family, but also for the environment and animal welfare.  But as Mr Pollan pointed out at the end of his lecture, there is really no "one" answer.  The unfortunate answer is that in order to make sure we are eating the best quality food with the lowest cost to the planet, we have to read labels and do research.  It can be exhausting.

So here are some things I have learned from Mr Pollan:

• Corn is everything.  Everything is corn.  It turns out that because everything most Americans eat is derived from corn, it actually ends up making up much of the carbon in our bodies.  Here is an excerpt from the book that says a lot about our dependence on corn:

Corn is what feeds the steer that becomes the steak. Corn feeds the
chicken and the pig, the turkey and the lamb, the catfish and the tilapia
and, increasingly, even the salmon, a carnivore by nature that the fish
farmers are reengineering to tolerate corn. The eggs are made of corn.
The milk and cheese and yogurt, which once came from dairy cows
that grazed on grass, now typically come from Holsteins that spend
their working lives indoors tethered to machines, eating corn.

Head over to the processed foods and you find ever more intricate
manifestations of corn. A chicken nugget, for example, piles corn upon
corn: what chicken it contains consists of corn, of course, but so do
most of a nugget’s other constituents, including the modified corn
starch that glues the thing together, the corn flour in the batter that
coats it, and the corn oil in which it gets fried. Much less obviously, the
leavenings and lecithin, the mono-, di-, and triglycerides, the attractive
golden coloring, and even the citric acid that keeps the nugget “fresh”
can all be derived from corn.

To wash down your chicken nuggets with virtually any soft drink in
the supermarket is to have some corn with your corn. Since the 1980s
virtually all the sodas and most of the fruit drinks sold in the supermarket
have been sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—after
water, corn sweetener is their principal ingredient. Grab a beer for your
beverage instead and you’d still be drinking corn, in the form of alcohol
fermented from glucose refined from corn. Read the ingredients on
the label of any processed food and, provided you know the chemical
names it travels under, corn is what you will find. For modified or unmodified
starch, for glucose syrup and maltodextrin, for crystalline fructose and ascorbic acid, for lecithin and dextrose, lactic acid and lysine, for maltose and HFCS, for MSG and polyols, for the caramel color and xanthan gum, read: corn. Corn is in the coffee whitener and Cheez
Whiz, the frozen yogurt and TV dinner, the canned fruit and ketchup
and candies, the soups and snacks and cake mixes, the frosting and
gravy and frozen waffles, the syrups and hot sauces, the mayonnaise
and mustard, the hot dogs and the bologna, the margarine and shortening,
the salad dressings and the relishes and even the vitamins. (Yes,
it’s in the Twinkie, too.) There are some forty-five thousand items in the
average American supermarket and more than a quarter of them now
contain corn.This goes for the nonfood items as well: Everything from the
toothpaste and cosmetics to the disposable diapers, trash bags, cleansers,
charcoal briquettes, matches, and batteries, right down to the shine on
the cover of the magazine that catches your eye by the checkout: corn.
Even in Produce on a day when there’s ostensibly no corn for sale you’ll
nevertheless find plenty of corn: in the vegetable wax that gives the cucumbers
their sheen, in the pesticide responsible for the produce’s perfection,
even in the coating on the cardboard it was shipped in. Indeed,
the supermarket itself—the wallboard and joint compound, the
linoleum and fiberglass and adhesives out of which the building itself
has been built—is in no small measure a manifestation of corn.

• Having a monoculture (one crop) is not healthy for the environment; pests of all types thrive in a monoculture, which makes farmers need to use more and more pesticides.  Monocultures also deplete the soil, which creates the need for more petroleum-based fertilizer.  There is so much excess fertilizer used in Iowa that in the spring, "Blue Baby" alerts are commonplace.  Parents are urged not to use tap water coming from the Des Moines river because of the huge nitrogen runoff from monocultural farms; nitrogen heavy water can inhibit the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the brain.  source
• Having a monoculture is not good for national security; it's never good to put all of your eggs in one basket.
• The farm bill is not good for farmers.  They should not be growing as much of a monocultural commodity crop as they possibly can for the lowest possible cost (they are often selling corn for less than it costs to grow it, then the government makes up some of the difference).
• Bovines should not eat corn (they literally can't digest corn and it makes them sick, which is one of the reasons both that they have to have antibiotics all the time and also why they emit greenhouse gases), they should eat grass.  That seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?  But chances are you may never have even eaten meat or milk from a cow that wasn't mostly grain fed. Meat from non-pastured cows, it turns out, may be what is making us sick, not the cholesterol in the meat itself.  Meat from pastured cattle is high in omega 3 fatty acids, meat from grain fed cattle is not (among many other ways that grain fed meats measure up poorly to grass fed).
• The "organic" label only means that the animal has only eaten organic feed and hasn't had hormones and antibiotics.  It does nothing to address the horrific conditions under which animals are kept and slaughtered in this country.  "Cage free" and "free range" only mean that the chicken was not in a battery cage.  It does NOT mean that the chicken ever went outside, only that in most cases for the last two weeks of its life a small door was opened in the barn.  Most chickens do not use it.
• Ethanol is NOT the answer.  More corn?  It seems on the face if it like it might be a good idea.  But guess what is used to fertilize the corn?  To refine it?  To transport it?  PETROLEUM.  Ethanol uses more petroleum to produce than it saves.  Pollan says that if the US used 100% of its corn crop to produce ethanol, it would replace 15% of the need for petroleum gas in this country. 

It may seem like the book is full of gloom and doom but the section where he talks about Polyface Farm is downright wonderful.  This farmer has found a way to produce astounding amounts of "better than organic" meat and eggs, while leaving the land richer.  This farm has animals that actually live the life that is pictured in the products of other companies.  And the owner doesn't ship his product because that goes against his ideals about eating local and using petroleum to ship food to the ends of the earth.

This is truly one of the best books I have ever read; I am positive that I am leaving out some major points but it's a start.  If you like to think critically about where your food is coming from, you can't go wrong with this one.

You can read the introduction and first chapter of the book here.
Here's a description from the author's website:

What should we have for dinner? The question has confronted us since man discovered fire, but according to Michael Pollan, the bestselling author of The Botany of Desire, how we answer it today, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, may well determine our very survival   as a species.   Should we eat a fast-food hamburger?  Something organic?  Or perhaps something we hunt, gather, or grow ourselves?  The omnivore’s dilemma has returned with a vengeance, as the cornucopia of the modern American supermarket and fast-food outlet         confronts us with a bewildering and treacherous food landscape. What’s at stake in our eating choices is not only our own and our children’s health, but the health of the environment that sustains life on earth.       

In this groundbreaking book, one of America’s most fascinating, original, and elegant writers turns his own omnivorous mind to the seemingly straightforward question of what we should have for dinner. To find out, Pollan follows each of the food chains that sustain us—industrial food, organic or alternative food, and food we forage ourselves—from the source to a final meal, and in the process develops a definitive account of the American way of eating.  His absorbing narrative takes us from Iowa cornfields to food-science laboratories, from feedlots and fast-food restaurants to organic farms and hunting grounds, always emphasizing our dynamic coevolutionary relationship with the handful of plant and animal species we depend on.  Each time Pollan sits down to a meal, he deploys his unique blend of personal and investigative journalism to trace the origins of everything consumed, revealing what we unwittingly ingest and explaining how our taste for particular foods and flavors reflects our evolutionary inheritance.       

The surprising answers Pollan offers to the simple question posed by this book have profound political, economic, psychological, and even moral implications for all of us. Beautifully written and thrillingly argued, The Omnivore’s Dilemma promises to change the way we think about the politics and pleasure of eating.  For anyone who reads it, dinner will never again look, or taste, quite the same.

Discrimination Knows No Time Limit

A little over two weeks ago Lily Ledbetter tried to equal the playing field for women in the workplace, but the U.S. Supreme Court blocked her attempt. 

Ms. Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Alabama for almost 20 years.  Ledbetter held a supervisory role at the plant and found out that after nearly two decades of service she was making $6,000 less annually than the next highest paid supervisor - a man.  The disparity was even greater when compared to other male counterparts.

Ledbetter was outraged and decided to sue Goodyear for what she claimed was gender pay discrimination perpetrated over several years.  An initial decision decided by a jury sided with Ledbetter, but on appeal (fighting lawyers not only representing Goodyear, but those working for the Bush Administration as well) Ledbetter lost her case. So Ledbetter and her lawyers took the case all the way to the Supreme Court where, in a close 5-4 decision, they were told that because her claim dated as far back as 15 years ago the statute of limitations had run out. 

So much for equal pay for equal work.

You see there is a law on the books, Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act, that is supposed to prevent discrimination in the workplace and give employees a right to make a claim against their employer when they feel they've been discriminated against due to race, gender, etc.  However, this new interpretation by the Court states that employees have 180 days from the time of the act of discrimination to make a claim against their employer or forfeit their right to seek legal action.

Why is this especially disconcerting in the area of pay discrimination?  Well, just like Ms. Ledbetter there is often little opportunity to discover what other employees are getting paid and therefore it could take years to find out that you've been discriminated against.  In fact, it is often against company policy to share with your colleagues what you're being paid.

This new interpretation of the law is a blow to women everywhere who find themselves struggling to gain equality in the workplace.  Women across the board generally receive only about 80% of the pay that men do for the same jobs.  And that's just among women with full-time jobs - the disparity is even greater when compared with part-time work and if you're a woman with children - well, good luck.

The good news is that it's not hopeless.  After this decision came down Democrats (led by Hillary Clinton) have moved to create legislation that would challenge this ruling.  Which puts the power back into the hands of women all over the country.  Contact your senators and let them know that you're furious; that you support legislation that would provide equal pay for equal work, regardless of a person's gender, and that would create a system of recourse for those who find themselves discriminated against anyway.

This is not something that we have to just accept.  This is something that can and must be changed.

Taking baby steps

In February, Soccermom Jane asked us to consider what we can do to make the environment better for our kids (and ourselves) through a just little bit of action.   At the time of her post, Jane and her family had already made several lifestyle changes: using cloth diapers, planning to compost garbage, and recycling whenever possible.  Her new goal was to walk rather than taking a vehicle to her son's playgroup in nice weather. 

Jane's post reminded me that even little things can make a big difference.  One of my long-term goals has always been to live a more environmentally-conscious and responsible life, but Jane helped me to think about how I could make a greater impact NOW, even if it's only in a few small ways.  And as I have slowly made changes in my own lifestyle, I have paid more attention to the stories of other people who are taking action -- in small and large ways -- with the environment in mind.  I'd like to share some of these stories with you in the hopes that you find little (or large) bits of inspiration in them as well.

• Back in March, one of my favorite bloggers applauded the new trend among Bay Area restaurants: serving tap water rather than bottled.  Citymama's comment about how much plastic we consume with each case of bottled water turned on a lightbulb in my head -- I'd never really considered how much plastic I use whenever I drink a bottle of water.  She started me thinking about a very simple change I need to make in my lifestyle: investing in one of those reusable water bottles and refilling it from the tap.

• I stumbled across an article about the Little Brown Dress sometime earlier this year.  A Seattle-area artist named Alex Martin wore a simple brown shift dress every day for a year, as a statement against consumerism.  Martin's new project is to wear only clothing that she already owns, or makes herself.  Her project has environmental implications: dressing simply means less discarded apparel to add to our landfills, and potentially less energy expended in the production of new garments.  I'm not ready to give up my wardrobe, but I'm thinking seriously about thrifting and sewing as options to store-bought clothing.

• Speaking of clothing, wouldn't it be great to wear casual clothing to work every day in the summer?  Well, the Ottawa provincial government has told its employees to do just that -- so they keep the thermostat set to a higher setting in government buildings.  The Ottawa government hopes to save money on electricity and bring attention to the issue of climate change.  Another positive outcome? Employees can get away with less dry cleaning.

• No Impact Man is one of my newest daily reads.  This blog chronicles the life of a Manhattan family endeavoring to live for one year without any net environmental impact.  No Impact Man's approach is pretty gung ho: "No garbage. No greenhouse gases. No toxins. No water pollution. No air pollution. No electricity. No produce shipped from distant lands."  He definitely does things I'm not ready to try (no DISHWASHER!?!) -- but other ideas, like the Hipster PDA, are more appealing and more practical for me. 

• Like No Impact Man, the author of Green as a Thistle is committed to "greening" her life, but her pace is much more my speed: one change a day.  This week her changes include feeding her cat locally produced organic foods, taking the stairs instead of the elevator when possible, and watering her plants with greywater.  I look forward to spending more time at her site to see what changes have worked well for her and which have been harder to implement.

Not finding the inspiration you need from the sites above?  Or are you still skeptical that small change really can make a difference?  Check out this great article about why small changes matter.  And remember: even marathon runners started to walk with just baby steps.

Jane, thanks for the inspiration.

Balancing Act

Ironically, today, on the day of my post about the balancing act that moms face every single day, I am at home with a sick child. On a day I really needed to be at work. However, I am lucky enough not to be "One Sick Child Away From Being Fired," even though I know many women are not so lucky.

And since I am at home and need to take care of my son, I'm going to have to present this topic by directing you to some of the research I did rather than writing up a detailed post as planned. Quotes and sources are provided. This topic is too important to pass by.

from the National Organization of Women: "The Balancing Act Bill (# H.R.2392), which was originally introduced in 2005, provides assistance for working families through increasing the number of workers eligible family and medical care leave; expands child care for young children and incentives for child care providers; preschool, in-school, and after school nutrition and education programs; requires parity for temporary and part-time workers in job benefits, including pension and health care plan coverage; and encourages business to permit employee telecommuting.

In a nutshell, the Balancing Act would:

1. help states provide paid leave for those caring for young children and elderly relatives. Also, it extends current unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act protections to employers with 15 or more employees, for additional family responsibilities, and is pro-rated for part time employees;
2. increase child care options for working families;
3. provide funding for after school programs and universal pre-kindergarten;
4. improve nutrition with reduced or free meals at school; and
5. encourage more friendly and flexible workplaces, including equitable treatment and benefits for part-time and temporary workers.

The Balancing Act is an important companion to other work/family policy initiatives, including The Healthy Families Act (S.910/H.R. 1542), which would provide for paid sick leave for more workers, and a soon-to-be introduced bill to provide for paid family leave."

from the website of the original sponsor, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA): "Washington, DC - A staunch advocate for children and families, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today introduced The Balancing Act, a comprehensive a package of legislative efforts designed to improve the lives of working families by making it easier for parents to balance their work and family responsibilities.

“Having healthy and strong families is in everyone’s interest, and that’s why this legislation is so important” Woolsey said. “When parents have the confidence of knowing their family’s needs are being met, they are much more productive on the job, which in turn strengthens our economy.

“But this legislation is about more than just strengthening our economy, this is about doing what’s right. Parents should not be forced to choose between having a successful career and raising a family, and we must ensure that they have the support available at their disposal to do both.”

The legislation would improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans by providing paid family and medical leave assistance, expanded child care opportunities, in-school and after school options, family care assistance, universal (voluntary) pre-school, incentives for family friendly work places, benefits for part-time workers, and telecommuting incentives. Woolsey has introduced similar legislation in the previous Congress, and views it as one of her top domestic priorities.

“The recommendations in this bill are common sense,” Woolsey said. “As a nation we must value work, but we must also ensure that someone’s commitment to their career does not overshadow their ability to raise a family. This legislation is one of my top domestic priorities, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Washington, and all interested parties to make these recommendations a reality.”

So what can you, the Soccer Mom Vote reader do? For one, contact your representative and ask them to co-sponsor the bill. Go to the N.O.W. website and implement their suggestions ("other ways to take action" at the bottom). Join MomsRising, a grassroots organization for women's issues and answer their calls to action (and see Soccer Mom Joanne there!) Together, we CAN make a difference.

(special thanks to Susan at Working Moms Against Guilt for her post on this issue).

mothers and babies, here and elsewhere

I'm going to be frank: I easily tire of the breastfeeding versus formula feeding debates that rage across any forum for Western parents on the internet.  Breast is best!  Formula feeding is fine!  We all have our opinions and make the choice that is most reasonable for each of our families.  In the land of plenty, we can at least agree there's a choice -- even if we continually feel compelled to justify which choice we've made.

However, I find myself growing increasingly aware that the majority of the world's population doesn't live where clean water, adequate income and well-maintained sanitation are the norm.  Infants in these conditions clearly benefit from breastfeeding.  Period.  The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, and should continue to receive breastmilk in addition to solid foods for until age two or beyond.  They have good reason and good research on which to base this recommendation.  Where the water is dirty and sanitation is poor, a bottle of formula can cause a digestive infection that can quickly dehydrate and kill an infant.  Where families aren't able to pay the price for enough formula, parents may use a more dilute solution, causing malnutrition and slowing growth.  Where infections are common and medical care is limited, children clearly benefit from the additional immune protection afforded by breastmilk. 

Despite an international code of recommendations regarding the marketing of infant feeding products -- which in many countries has become law -- formula companies continue to promote their products to healthcare workers and parents in developing countries.  Their means of marketing, including gifts to new parents, samples, and campaigns targeting vulnerable populations increase the acceptibility of infant formula and have been shown to decrease breastfeeding rates.

The costs are great: children die, and the numbers aren't small.  A recent report from the WHO estimated that, globally, approximately 1.45 infants die because of suboptimal breastfeeding in developing countries.

One and a half million children. Every year.  To put this in perspective, that's the equivalent of the entire population of the metropolitan area where I live.

This doesn't sit right with me.  In fact, it makes me want to kick some corporate behind.  Preying on vulnerable populations to increase sales of a product that is unnecessary at best (with reasonable exceptions made for cases where formula is truly needed), and LETHAL at worst is unethical and injust.

The U.S. needs to take action to set a better standard for infant feeding practices.  According to the most recent IBFAN report (2006), the United States has not implemented the international code for marketing as law.  (In my own limited experience [n=1], formula samples were offered to me in addition to a free diaper bag in the hospital.  Such practices would be outlawed if the code were in effect.) 

In addition, the U.S. government needs to throw some of its financial and political strength into enforcing the rules for the large multinational corporations that profit from infant formula sales.  Nestle, whose website proudly pronounces it "the largest food and beverage company in the world, is historically one of the worst offenders.  And while there is an organized effort to boycott Nestle, this 30-year-old boycott has yet to be effective.  Something more needs to be done, and the most efficient way of enforcing ethical behavior is to hit the companies where it hurts: the bottom line.

While the debate boards at iVillage may rage on between who will breast feed and who will formula feed, I'm ready to look at the bigger picture.  How do our choices as individuals and nations of privilege affect those struggling to survive?  What model are we providing (and what misconceptions are we promoting) related to those choices?