Support For The Soldiers. Shop Sears.

I have despaired over the "brand whore" attitude of the next generation of the family. There are 8 and 9 years olds that will only wear clothes that come from either American Eagle or Aeropostle (or something like that). My own daughters will never think it chic or even acceptable to buy from old name department stores.
But I have realized that I, too, have that attitude in many ways as well. In fact, I remember that when I was about that same age, I was afflicted with it, too. There was one time that Mom brought me some new jeans as part of my "back-to-school" wardrobe. I threw a fit when I saw the "Buckskins" label on them. Jeans from Sears?? NO WAY I was wearing them. Ever. She wound up exchanging them for some dark green Wranglers (not as cool as Levi's, but when I wore those with the dark paisley shirt, I was pretty cool).
Sears hasn't ever been in my mind as a retail outlet for much more than tools or appliances. I have found them to be a good outlet for the work boots I wear now.
But an email came across my desk about a month ago that has made me rethink the position.
For most employers, when a worker is called up to active duty, either in the Guard or one of the "regular" service units, it creates a hardship. By law, the employer is required to hold a position open for that person to return to. That is the minimum requirement, as I understand it. Health insurance, seniority and other fringe benefits are not required to be maintained. Insurance can usually be continued under COBRA, but that often costs more than if they were still clocking in every day. For many of our military personnel, this, coupled with the reduction in wages a call up means, results in their families becoming uninsured.
Sears, I have learned, continues all insurance coverages and other benefits in the employee's absence. Sears also voluntarily makes up the difference in wages, so that the families can maintain the same lifestyle. Company spokespersons have said Sears feels it is "the right thing to do."
You can verify this on Snopes website.
I'm for sure getting some presents there. And I'm telling the clerks and managers why.

Livestock Tax - Is B.S. really the cause?

Recently, I was told about a proposal by the EPA for what is essentially a livestock tax. The rough proposal would apparently require farm operations of both modest and large scale size to obtain permits because of the amount of methane gases produced by their herds. The goal is to reduce air pollution.
I am not, by any measure, an expert on either air pollution or farming. Some would say I am an expert on bulls***t.
But a brief time of thinking about this proposal leads one to the conclusion that it is either a poorly thought out idea born of the elitist belief that government can solve complex problems with the wave of a law making pen or a governmental money grab.
The different articles I have read on the story indicate that a farm with more than 25 dairy cows would be subject to the penalty/permit requirement. Estimates I have seen are $175 per dairy cow, or $4375 for the smallest effected operations. Beef cattle ranches of more than 50 head would be hit with the same fees, or $87.50 per animal. I have been talking with one of my co-workers about purchasing an interest in a calf he is raising. He told me that I could expect the animal to weigh about 800 pounds at the time of slaughter, and that 75% of the weight should be in food grade product.
Ok, so adding fifteen cents/pound to the overhead of raising the animals doesn't sound so bad. But you can be sure that it won't be only fifteen cents when it hits the shelves of the local grocer. But the federal government would only get the benefit of that $87.50 per animal. If you are like me, you think, why would the government be that concerned with getting paid like that? Let's take it to scale to see the motivation for that.
A few years ago, I worked for a tannery. We sold leather to shoe and furniture manufacturers both domestically and globally. Some of the leather was "finished" in Maine. Much of it was exported to other finishing operations around the world. US leather is a prized commodity for people that make leather because of its quality. I was stunned to learn that our initial processing plant in Saint Jo, MO. was processing (at the time) 50,000 hides per week! Much of the beef production was going to fast food producers but even still.....
Let's do some math now... (Rat, I know you already have finished this calculation)... 50,000 times $87.50 equals $4,375,000. A WEEK. $227,500,000 in new annual revenue for the federal government, disguised as an environmental action step to improve air quality.
And that is just for the beef cattle. We haven't touched the dairies, hog farms and chicken operations.
I realize this is just a drop in the bucket for monies the Feds need now, after all these bailouts. Heck, this doesn't even pay for one AIG executive seminar weekend! But it will impact many small producers and ultimately do nothing to improve the quality of our air.
If greenhouse gases were controllable and regional, there might be some logic behind the action. But by moving production to another location in the world (you don't seriously think McDonald's is going to stop selling hamburgers, do you?), we increase the costs and INCREASE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT of the hamburger by making it necessary to transport the beef greater distances. I'm sure there will not be a requirement for all transported food products to be moved via hybrid vehicles!
I want my legislators to be looking for ways to encourage more local food production, looking for ways to get Americans off our couches and exercising (remember The President's Council on Physical Fitness?) and leave the meat alone.

It's Not the Banter; it's the Tribalism

I read this essay in the NY Times, In Defense of Teasing. In it the author points out all the benefits of teasing, and how, as usual, we throw the baby out with the bath water in our attempts to eliminate bullying. What struck me as I was reading was how we try to resolve a complex issue by attacking a singular symptom. He writes how teasing is a form of making social connections. And is used in denoting social rank. We got me to thinking how for the those of high status, their teasing of very low status folks is just maintaining the social pecking order. Which wouldn't be harmful if it weren't malicious and was a means of inclusion -- making social connections. If it were simply about establishing boundaries, even if those markers were exclusionary, it would still be benign. "We're the in group and you're not part of it." We convey messages of power in all sorts of ways. Not an issue. Where it has become a real problem is that the social connection between the powerful and the powerless has evolved past the point of declaring the weak as social non-entities to delivering the message that even their humanity is in question. We are more concerned with the welfare of stray animals than we are the homeless and vulnerable. The message begins to be delivered in elementary school, gets firmly planted in middle school, and is set in concrete by high school. And sadly, we the adults, are the ones who establish it and reinforce it with out children. How often do you in subtle and not so subtle ways join your children in marking their tribal boundaries. "Burger flipper" "Trailer trash" "Drama Queen" "Nerd" "Geek" and even simply "Loser" Think about it.