Skip the Stuff: Make takeout utensils and condiments opt in: Letters
Skip the Stuff: Make takeout utensils and condiments opt in
May 2 — To the Editor:
I want to make your reader’s aware of an easy solution to that drawer, the one overflowing with unneeded condiment packets, chopsticks and plastic utensils. Many takeout orders go home, or to another location where there are reusable utensils and bulk condiments. Currently, takeout accessories are opt-out at most restaurants, meaning that they’re included by default and a customer must remember to decline them, which doesn’t guarantee those items won’t be there when you open the bag.
These unnecessary single-use items are often plastic and are not recyclable (less than 6% of all plastics are recycled). They will be burned, buried or littered. As a Surfrider Foundation NH chapter volunteer, I’ve picked up many single-use foodware items off our Seacoast beaches. Bioplastics, also known as compostable plastics, can be made with chemicals like PFAS and behave the same as their fossil fuel counterparts in the environment, risking the health of both wildlife and people as they degrade into smaller pieces known as microplastics — which are now found throughout the human body.
So what can we do? Skip the Stuff. This national campaign was initiated by Upstream Solutions in response to the now 561 billion disposable food service items handed out every year in the U.S., resulting in 4.9 million tons of waste. By flipping to an opt-in versus opt-out model for disposable foodware and condiment packets, we can make a huge dent in single-use plastic waste while saving restaurants money. If customers want accessory items, they just have to ask.
Look for Skip the Stuff posters popping up in the windows of Portsmouth, Rye and Dover restaurants, and thank them for voluntarily taking action to reduce plastic pollution. Reach out to campaigns@nh.surfrider.org to help Portsmouth Skip the Stuff.
Christina Dubin
Portsmouth
Positive headlines miss part of the picture
May 1 — To the Editor:
Interesting group of headlines in the Sunday Herald:
Hope for those with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders!
NH got ahead of Medicaid unwinding; but some got hit hard!
New report puts big number on NH housing crisis!
NH, hospitals disagree on how long it will take to end ‘ ER boarding’!
It’s great that the light bulbs are coming on in people’s minds.
I’m glad there’s hope!
But what about the people who lost the insurance to pay for their treatment?
And didn’t know it until treatment was refused?
Because they lost their housing or they were boarding in an ER and they didn’t get the notices about the Great Unwinding?
Duh.
John Mark Blowen APRN
Stratham
Gun violence and U.S. Department of Justice facts
May 2 — To the Editor:
The most recent mass shooting in Texas supports the findings of media bias as reported by the DOJ. If you honestly wish to decrease gun violence across our country, you must be willing to look past the bias of media outlets and elected politicians and agree upon factual common ground.
Did you know that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice? The NIJ website states, “We are dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. We provide objective and independent knowledge and tools to inform the decision-making of the criminal and juvenile justice communities to reduce crime and advance justice, particularly at the state and local levels.” They follow “widely accepted scientific processes and procedures to help ensure the validity and integrity” of their research. They listen to community members, crime survivors, criminal justice practitioners, people who have been incarcerated, business leaders about crime control, and prevention successes.
“After NIJ has evaluated the results of the funded research, it is disseminated through multiple channels to (1) give policymakers and practitioners the best available evidence to make decisions and (2) build knowledge that advances both science and practice.”
The NIJ is required to make annual reports to Congress. The NIJ website reflects the last annual report was filed for 2020 — no annual reports have been filed for 2021 or 2022. However, their website, https://nij.ojp.gov, does contain a research document dated February 3, 2022, entitled “Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories”. The subtitle states, “A troubled past and leaked plans are common to those who take part in mass shootings. Most use handguns."
Mass shootings in that report are defined as a shooting that kills four or more people. “The data on 172 mass public shooters cover more than 150 psychosocial history variables, such as those individuals’ mental health history, past trauma, interest in past shootings, and situational triggers.” Many of the mass shooters are radicalized online, purchase handguns legally, and 64.5% of individuals had a prior criminal record. While 77.2% used handguns, 25.1% used ARs in commission of their crimes. The findings point out that media outlets have their own biases in favor of coverage of mass shootings (i.e., schools, military bases, assault rifles, etc.).
Additionally, the research states the fact that there are no federal laws requiring safe storage of guns and no federal standards for firearm locks. The NIJ website contains additional research results specific to violence and school safety.
It is time to put political agendas, emotions, and biases aside and look to real scientific evidence to reduce gun violence in this country. To that end, this NIJ report should serve as a valuable resource. It is also time to demand that the current DOJ/NIJ fulfill its responsibility and file required delinquent annual reports with Congress.
Cheryl Russell
Dover
With SB 272, ALEC is pushing hateful ideology on New Hampshire
May 2 -- To the Editor:
It’s not wrong for parents to want to be more involved in their kids’ education. But SB 272 (the “parents’ bill of rights”) isn’t about that. It will drive a wider wedge between parents and teachers, and further weaken our public schools. And it maliciously targets queer and transgender people.
This bill did not arise spontaneously from grassroots need. Think about who benefits. Parental bills of rights have been pushed for decades by the infamous American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which funnels dark money to ultra-conservative politicians and writes “model legislation” for them. At least one of SB 272’s sponsors, Sen. Sharon Carson, has been active with ALEC. The organization is always looking for ways to take taxpayer money and give it to for-profit enterprise. As the Center for Media and Democracy has reported, ALEC’s most recent tactic is to attack LGBTQ+ people by way of school curricula. In states across the country, they’ve helped convince voters that “the trans agenda” has gone “too far,” that “woke” teachers are somehow indoctrinating and harming children and therefore need to be monitored and criminalized. Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill is only the most egregious example of this trend.
Religious and conservative parents do have considerable freedom in New Hampshire: they can homeschool or send their children to private schools that comport with their ideology. Pushing this ideology on everyone else is dangerous and wrong. Please call your state rep today and tell them to vote no.
Siobhan Senier
Epping
Ranked choice voting is a more democratic voting system
May 7 — To the Editor:
If I were to try to demystify ranked choice voting (RCV), I’d begin by focusing on the word “choice.” But I would pluralize it to “choices.” Think of it as ranked choices voting.
In explaining RCV, the analogy is often made to buying an ice cream cone. If there were three flavors — vanilla, chocolate or strawberry — and they were out of vanilla, you still had a choice for chocolate or strawberry.
Not so with our current voting system. If you want vanilla too bad for you — you don’t get to choose chocolate or strawberry, because with our current system the voter only has one choice, even if A, B, C and D are running.
With ranked choice voting you have choices. Assuming the same four candidates (above) are in the race with ranked choice voting you can vote your first choice, but also your second, third, fourth choices. If your first choice candidate receives the fewest votes, your vote is transferred to your second choice, and so on until one candidate reaches over 50%.
The ballot will look a little different. Heretofore you blackened just one bubble on your ballot. If there are four candidates running with RCV you will have four bubbles to blacken — corresponding to your preference.
I think most of us can handle it: having to blacken four bubbles instead of one bubble every couple of years seems a small price to pay for enhancing our participation in the democratic process. Scream it from the rooftops and let your representative know you give a damn about a more democratic voting system.
Mike Dater
Portsmouth
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Skip the Stuff: Make takeout utensils and condiments opt in: Letters
