BPA — or bisphenol-a to you nerdy types — has been in the news a lot lately. Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us are the latest to listen to consumer demand (go free market!) and are starting to pull baby bottles containing BPA. Canada’s push for a full ban is moving forward, and more and more companies are starting to manufacture BPA-free alternatives. Why? Because experiments on lab animals has linked BPA to “changes in the brain, early puberty, and possible tumors.” Not exactly something you want to make it’s way into your baby’s body (or yours for that matter — Nalgene, a manufacturer of reusable drinking bottles, is also starting to phase out BPA in its production process).

We’re certainly not ones to shy away from a trend when there’s good science and our kids’ health involved, so we’ve convinced Medela to give away a Breastmilk Feeding & Storage Set containing three BPA-free bottles, lids and nipples, to 5 of our lucky readers to get started down a toxin-free path. (Pssst, we have a sneaky feeling these bottles would be just fine for formula feeding as well.) The entry form is here.

Ed. note: The Imperfect Parent did not receive any compensation for this post

Bookmark to:
    

UPDATE: The following decision to with-hold a $25,000 bond prize to the first baby born in 2007 because the mother is an illegal alien, has been reversed to thwart controversy and backlash. Even though they (TRU) probably did make the correct decision because they’ll probably get their asses sued off otherwise, I still think the knee-jerk reaction to with-hold the money sends a powerful message — don’t expect to come here and get everything handed to you for free just because you manage to squeeze a kid out. I hope the parents plan on becoming legal because if we actually pursued the laws on the books, they would be deported. That is the law, not my opinion. How many legal Americans could blantently break the law in front of the entire world everyday and not be prosecuted for it?

———————————————————-

Toys ‘R Us is no stranger to controversy. I kind of like it too. They’re not about to give into whiny cry babies who’s sole purpose in life to to complain about how unfair life is and how they’re entitled to something that they didn’t get. In the face of illegal immigration, they’re equal opportunity dissenters from the political powers that be — out to prove that it doesn’t matter what country you’re from, if you’re in the U.S. illegally — you aren’t entitled to squat. Go TRU!:

Associated Press
Toys ‘R’ Us Baby Contest Sparks Fuss

Toys “R” Us Inc. has come under fire for denying a Chinese-American infant a $25,000 savings bond prize in a contest for the New Year’s first baby because the girl’s mother is not a legal U.S. resident.

The company’s decision - which came less than a month after it opened its first mainland China store, in Shanghai - has infuriated some Chinese-American advocates.

Yuki Lin was born at the stroke of midnight at New York Downtown Hospital, according to hospital officials. She won a random drawing held to break a tie with two other babies entered in the contest, Toys “R” Us spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said.

The Wayne, N.J.-based company had said the prize would go to the first American baby born in 2007. Read the rest…

And, of course, people are pissed:

Some Chinese-American advocates say the company’s decision smacks of second-class citizenship.

Yeah, because illegal aliens should be treated like U.S. citizens even though they’re not. Just because you’re not something, doesn’t mean you aren’t - wah, wah, wah. Bitch, bitch, bitch, moan, moan, moan. Boo fuckin’ who.

Given, I don’t know what the legal ramifications are, all I know is that whole anchor baby policy is bullshit. It was never intended for people to come here, burden tax payers pockets and take away from their families in order to fund their children’s upbringing. I’m not talking about legal immigrants, I’m talking about the ones that come here and squeeze out a kid in order to get their illegal asse’s kid a free ride.

Like I said, I don’t know if what they did was legal and if it isn’t, let it play out in court, but I like the message it sends.

Bookmark to:
    

One of my fondest memories of Christmastime as a kid was not even close to Christmas Day, but rather around Thanksgiving — that was the time when the giant toy catalog would come in the mail. Upon its arrival, my task was to go through and find the toys I wanted and write them on a list to be sent to Santa Claus (c/o The North Pole). The catch was that I could only pick 10 finalists, of which Santa would peruse them and determine which one was to be America’s Next Top Toy.

At 6 years old this was one of the most important decisions of my life, and I put more thought into it than the Nobel Institute picking its prizewinners. I spent days sitting at the desk in my bedroom, poring over the catalog pages. I would frantically circle items, scratch others out, dog-ear corners, prioritize, and overflow my wastebasket with crumpled up piles of list rejects. After final deliberation, I would carefully fold the list and place it into its awaiting stamped and addressed envelope and finally emerge, weary and barely able to lift my arm and present the list to my mother. She would smile, put the envelope in her purse, and promise to drop it in the mail on her next trip outside. At the time, I couldn’t understand why she wouldn’t just let me run down to the corner and do it myself.

I wanted to continue this tradition with my own children, but being the online addict that I am, I wanted to bring it into the modern day. So instead of a catalog, I sat them down in front of the computer and pulled up the Toys ‘R Us website. I showed them how to browse the different categories, and how to add items to their shopping cart. Just like my mom used to, I told them to think very hard and pick toys that they really, really wanted, and I would send the cart to Santa when they were done and he would pick the very best toys to bring them. Unlike my mom, however, I neglected to give them any sort of limit. Here was the result:

Does anyone know where I can get a good rate on a home equity loan?

Bookmark to:
    

After stumbling upon Jessica’s recent post about Toys ‘R Us allegedly harrassing a breastfeeding mother, TRU’s PR manager forwarded us two letters that went out today to the New York Civil Liberties Union in a clear effort to try and stave off the NYCLU’s veiled threat of a lawsuit. One is from Gerald L. Storch, Chairman and CEO of TRU, the other, from Mindy Clements, the general manager of the Times Square TRU store where this all took place, who says she is “also a new mother” and that she feels she is “especially sensitive to issues involving a mother’s right to breastfeed where she chooses”.

Of course, these are most assuredly carefully crafted bits of PR, but given that this whole incident seems to be hearsay and in the interest of objectivity, I’m reprinting both letters here. Read them in their entirety after the jump:

continue reading…

Bookmark to:
    

According to the New York Sun, a woman who was breastfeeding in a NYC Toys ‘R Us was asked by several sales associates to move to their private nursing room in the store’s basement. The controversy stems from how and why she was asked. Toys ‘R Us is claiming that the associates merely asked her if she would be more comfortable in the private area. The mother claims that they told her breastfeeding in the middle of so many families and children was not appropriate. By the time this alleged snafu escalated to what might have elicited further action, the mother was done breastfeeding and went about her business.

The New York Civil Liberties Union says that if TRU doesn’t educate their employees and offer a public apology, they will sue them for violating this woman’s civil rights. The kicker is that in their own press release listed on the ACLU website, they threaten to sue for “compensation”.

FOR WHAT?! At most this women was offended. She was not evicted from the store, she was not denied being able to shop there. Is this what we’ve come to? Should we compensate people just for being offended?

If what TRU is claiming to be true, that she was simply asked if she would feel more comfortable in a more isolated location (which I know some breastfeeding women would be), is that an actionable offense? Perhaps many associates asked, just like how you get asked by 5 salespeople if they can help you, but so what? One associate may not know that somebody has already approached them. It happens all the time.

What exactly are her damages?

I support civil rights, in fact I think we should have more rights and less government intrusion into our lives, yet the NYCLU is contridicting their original intentions by taking away one’s right to be ignorant and say something offensive and naive. Holding corporations hostage for the political intelligence and savvyness of their employees is outrageous. Ideally, TRU probably should include training on the right to breastfeed in public, but are they to be held accountable for a particular person’s sensitivity too?

I say, if you don’t like a rude associate, don’t continue to shop at such a place. Allow consumers to “punish” TRU if they think that’s appropriate, but must we use breastfeeding as a tool to push social and political censorship of unpopular opinion or saying something that is seemingly innocuous, but offensive to those with a particular agenda?

From www.nysun.com

Bookmark to: