GladRags Gab

I’m reading the astounding Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Nature Deficit Disorder? Initially, I didn’t want to read it. First, out of disgust for this disorder-for-everything kind of culture we live in and secondly because I couldn’t believe, have we gotten to that point already? But I am wrong on both counts. In the first case, Richard Louv, the author, states right away that this is not a medical diagnosis, just a way of describing the growing separation of nature from childhood that he had been keeping tabs on for the last decade. And in the second, I find out that people have been concerned about this issue for years. Since 1877 (!) a non-profit called Fresh Air Fund out of NYC has been providing inner-city kids with free country vacations so that they could get the obviously health-enhancing benefits of…nature. Okay, point(s) taken.

It’s sad that we have somehow become so removed from nature that we have to advocate to be near it. Louv sites, among other things, the decline of the family farm, intellectualization of the natural world (understanding acid rain but never playing in the river), the rise of community associations that place strict rules on natural space, and our recent tendency to scare our kids out of wandering out into nature as characteristics of this, the “third frontier”. He provides mind-boggling facts like, “between 2000 and 2003, spending on ADHD for preschoolers increased 369 percent,” and tells the story of the three boys who built a tree fort in their yard only to be shut down for not having building permits.

The tone reminds somewhat of Deep Economy , the book that Brenda blogged about earlier. With these important but rather gloom-and-doom books, I try to hang on to what positive points I can. There are always helpful solutions at the end and the hope that we can make the right decisions. And I hang on to simpler things: watching my kids play outside in our yard, making “soup” out of hose water and yard debris, and our mutual delight in butterflies. And for my myself, when I notice the changes in my body—that it’s almost time to grab a GladRag out of my drawer—I know I’m keeping a connection with the lunar cycle and the aspect of nature that is my very own body.

–Michelle 

    I am usually not very political, but I must say that the prospect of having a female President of the United States has got my ears pricked. The only reason why a woman should not be President that I can ever remember anyone giving is that she would be too emotional and unable to make decisions, especially during “that time of the month”—that is to say because she is a menstruator. I have heard this reason more than once, most often in semi-jest, and honestly I haven’t heard it in a while, but I remember these kinds of comments as a young girl. What other reason could men give? Menstruating is what makes us different. Then there is the whole school of thought that women are NOT different. We can do anything men can do. I think there are a masculine and a feminine principle at play here. Generally, women tend to carry more of the feminine principle than men, and men more of the masculine than women, but we all know lots of exceptions to that rule. To tell you the truth, I am more disturbed by women who have made their way into government and business only to act just like men. Clearly, women should not be discounted because of gender and in most ways are not actually different than men. And yet, I think embracing the contrasting way the feminine principle governs a nation and in this case would influence the world is vitally important.
    In my neck of the woods in progressive Vermont, so far the buzz is all about Barack Obama. I’m mildly surprised that everyone is not jumping at the chance just to get a woman (does she even still menstruate?) in the White House. Maybe you all can fill me in on how she’s managed to turn people off. I’m rooting for a female President because I think what the world really needs is the female principle and woman are more likely to carry it than men (especially in politics). But if Hillary Rodham Clinton takes the election and perpetuates the masculine model and Barack Obama becomes President and embraces the feminine, I have to wonder—how important is it to have a full-blooded (pun intended) menstruator in the White House? And I’m sorry, I can’t help it, a menstruator in the “White” House, maybe they are afraid they’ll never get the stains out!

Michelle

Whole Foods Market, national purveyors of organic and natural grocery goods, is in the process of acquiring Wild Oats, another national and natural grocer.  The over half a billion dollar deal was moving along as planned until the Federal Trade Commission threw a wrench in the works.  Citing antitrust law infringement, the FTC has filed a complaint against the proposed merger on the grounds that such a union would eliminate substantial competition in the premium natural and organic marketplace.

I never thought that I would so emphatically object to the FTC taking issue with the further consolidation of big business; large corporations often have the majority market share over the smaller players and I like to see these businesses have a chance too - this is America after all.  However, this complaint is incredibly unjust.  The FTC is limiting the natural and organic marketplace by failing to acknowledge the substantial competition that Whole Foods and Wild Oats face from the mainstream grocery market, which continues to add organic lines to their offerings.  The complaint not only ignores and skews this real competition, but it also comes before many more pressing antitrust infringement priorities that exist in this country.  Have they ever heard of Wal-Mart?  Economists and business analysts are left dumbfounded: why is the FTC wasting its time with this?

I am not prone to conspiracy theorizing.  With the attention that this government agency is giving to hindering these thriving businesses and the people's tax dollars that it is taking to do so, I am outraged with the obvious bias that is underway here.  There are associations for every industry in the country and I am sure that there is one for the mainstream grocers out there that has a fulltime staff of lobbyists  political pushers working to ensure that this progressive and successful competitor, Whole Foods, is thrown every barrier possible to entry in the larger grocer marketplace.

My ire stems less from my love of big business (I work at GladRags after all) and more from a desire to see people play fair.  The FTC has set the rules and they should follow them.  They are being preferential and discriminatory and their boldness is shameless.

For some wonderfully elucidating articles, check out the links below.

- Diana

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/06/06/is-whole-foods-building-an-evil-empire.aspx
http://retail.seekingalpha.com/article/37547?source=feed
http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20070605-000643-1522
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/06/wholefoods.shtm

I read this article on Sunday and it made me so depressed. It's about the Supreme Court's decision to support the interests of businesses over workers. It's the story of Lilly Ledbetter, an employee who file suit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber for wage discrimination.  She was clearly discriminated against but the Supreme Court decided to a enforce a strict time requirement for challenges to be made within 180 days of the first unequal paycheck.  Lily Ledbetter didn't even know she was being unfairly paid for years. This is a ruling that hurts not only women but all unfairly treated workers. Here's the link to the article by Oregonian writer Susan Nielsen.

-Brenda