Bread is not simple

Bread is in many ways not simply a food, it is for us in the west the Ur food. It's nickname is The Staff of Life. The phrases "give us this day our daily bread," and living on "bread and water," suggest that bread is not just any old nibble, it is the one food we need every day, the one food that sustains life. (Recent low carbiness aside.)

And yet for most of us, bread is a mystery. Some people apparently have the notion that bread is one thing: that sort of happens like magic. (And no Virgina, that's not magic, that's yeast.)
I got into it the other day with someone who was mad that Chicken McNuggets had more than two ingredients: chicken and bread. They were outraged that it's something like 30. While I don't want to defend the McNugget, (30 is excessive) I do want to defend the notion that food is complicated. And that things like the McNugget can't be 2 ingredients. 10-15 might be a better call.

The simplest bread is 3 ingredients: Flour, salt, water. This bread tends to suck. Sorry about that, but unless it's hot off the grill, it's rarely that good. The next simplest tends to go something like this: Flour, salt, water, yeast, milk, sugar, fat. Then you step it up to add other kinds of flours, milk, maybe some Vit C, or various other flavor perkers, etc to improve the taste and the way it feels in you mouth. Whole Food's basic white bread, for instance, has 17 ingredients. Then, since I assume you probably won't eat it all that day, you will want to add more of a preservative than salt.

Preservatives: I can hear some of you going, icky-bad -no! Actually, they aren't all bad. They especially aren't if you are a woman. Especially if you aren't a rich woman. Preservatives allow for bread to be made in Texas, and shipped to New England via train, not airmail. They allow for bread to be eaten on days other than the day it was made. They also allow for the savings of mass production to come to bread. They mean that the person who is responsible for food in the household doesn't have to either make bread everyday, or buy bread every day. (That person, btw, is generally a woman, with a lot to do, and not a ton of money, hence the line at the beginning of this paragraph.) Now sure, I'd like to have a bakery near by, fresh bread I could pop in and buy each morning. But unfortunately, I live in the suburbs. And in America, if you want to live in walking distance of nice food shops you generally have to be rich. Middle class people live in burbs and poor people live in places where they only food for sale tends to be pork rids and chips. (That's a whole nother post.)
So if it weren't for preservatives I'd have to make bread daily, buy bread daily -- which is a drive to the store and back, plus waiting to check out, -- or have fresh bread once a week and switch to toast the next day, or move from the burbs.

Now, personally, 1&3 are the way I go. But my homemade bread really isn't that good. So don't get entranced by the notion. But I fully acknowledge that is not how lots of women want to live their lives. Making bread by hand takes 20 minutes of work, but 3 hours of rising, and an hour of baking. (Or turning on the bread machine.) Both of them require being in the house when the bread is done, so you can tend to it. And yes, it would generally be women who do this. Other women prefer to spend their time cleaning their houses, or playing with their kids, or going to the gym, or a dozen other things.

I would like to go to a baker's everyday, but reorganizing the physical layout of America is more of a challenge than I'm up to this morning. Over the last 60 years we have developed a car based housing layout in this country. In that time the population has gone from 132 million to 320 million. The car has done lots of nifty things for us, but it has also trapped many of us in the burbs. The car lets us live in single houses, on plots of land, far far from the expensive city centers or our jobs. On the other hand it means we are far far from the city center and shopping. So in order to go buy bread most of us have to get in the car and drive to the shop and then drive home. That's what's technically known as a hassle. When you do it with a bunch of children, it's known as a pain in the ass. So, if people are going to go to that kind of bother it makes sense for them to be able to get EVERYTHING in one place to minimize the hassle of getting to any given shop. Think about it, if you were going to go to a shop for aspirin, then another for glass cleaner, then another for meat, and another for fruits, and another for veg, then one for bread -- in a driving based set up, that's a lot of get in the car, find parking, out of the car, and repeat. It's not so much of a bother when you just stroll around the market street and walk into whatever little store you want. But in the car, with a bunch of kids... You will drop by the liquor store at the end of it. Sensible retailers noticed this and began offering massive selections, so women didn't have to go to a dozen places. Of course, once you have a Wall-oger-lix the size of a football field that has three knock-on effects. One) smaller, specialty stores have a harder time competing; two) the customer radius expands, so more people come to that shop from father away than walking distance; three) the stores need a massive amount of food, and it has to be logistics compatible. That means it has to be preserved enough to come from a factory, and it must be mechanized enough that Wall-oger-lix can count on the same amount of food showing up in regularly plannable times.

So anyway, Food is complicated. Food ties in with mass production, and money, and feminism, and city planning.

Just wanted to get that in there.

A Tale of Two Cakes

Actually, it's more than 2 cakes, but that's the classic line isn't it.

I was thinking about this the other day as I made Tigger's birthday cake.

I made it from scratch out of organic and fair things. It was a chocolate cake, with granche icing, and pink frosting rosettes. .

Each stage wasn't that bad, but the whole thing took me all day, on and off and several bowels to wash. 15-20 to mix, 15 minutes to construct the pan -- they don't make funky shaped pans in exactly the shape I wanted --, 45 to cook, 2 hours to cool, 10 minutes for granche, 10 to cover, 1 hour to cool, 5 minutes to make frosting, 15 minutes to pipe out rosettes.

The cost for this really delicious cake made of grass-fed butter, fair trade cocoa and sugar, and organic flour was not that high: butter is $4 a lb, flour, sugar, and oil, etc. about $2, cream $1, chocolate $5.50 a bag. So about $13-15 at most, inc electricity.

(That fair trade choc is a killer price wise, but child slave labor is such a downer.)

However if I'd gone all box mix, what would I have saved? For Generic choch full-o-polysyllabic thingys and non-organic, non fair-trade stuff? I'd have saved $5, and some time. $5 is a lot if you do it everyday, but right now I make under 10 cakes a year, between parties, birthdays, special events, etc. That's half a dozen fun Starbucks' Coffee Creations. If I went a bit more upmarket to Cherrybrook farms, it would cost me about the same amount of time as a box mix and costs abut the same as my home made cake, except non-fair trade.

Box mix, (add $2 for home ingredients.) frosting out a can, packaged decorations:

Betty Crocker, $2+2, $2 and $3 = $9

Cherrybrook farms or Pamela's $5+2, $3, $3 = $13

For both the time is 10 minutes to mix, 45 to bake, 2 hours to cool, 10 minutes to frost and five minutes to smack on pre-bought decorations out of the packet. That works out to about 3 hours and 15 minutes. I mean the BettyCrocker kind, not the beauteous sugar gum paste things from Cake Art, which cost $10-15.

Or I could save my time and energy and *buy* a cake.

You can get a Publix Cake for $25-35. (Generic grocery cake with industrial ingredients)

Or a really delicious cake from Fancy Top Notch French Bakery, all real good ingredients(butter and flour and cocoa, etc), but not organic or fair trade. $42 An extra $10 there. Or about a dollar a slice. Still,if you are going to eat cake shouldn't it *taste* like cake?

Time for Publix, that would be 15-20 minutes inc driving

For Fancy Top Notch French Bakery 30-40 minutes driving.

So for buying I trade lots of money for a time savings of around a 2 and half hours. But is that two and a half hours worth it? I value my time at $25/hour. So yeah. Buying it "saves" me 64 bucks of my time over the cake box. And I don't want to figure out how much over the special cake.

So clearly the best bargin for delux birthday type cakes is actually the fancy French bakery cake. But the fair trade thing niggles at my conscience. Plus they don't make cakes in special shapes: just round or square. (Of course, for basic cakes, I can manage to make the mix in 10 minutes, bake for 45, and ice in under 15. I just rarely make basic cakes. And my ingredient costs are well under $10.)

Why the Repubicans hate the French

Recently Conservative Republicans have been going on the morning talk shows proudly announcing that we were all about to become French.

At least, I thought they were proudly announcing it, because *I* was personally very excited. My husband had to break the news to me, that they were warning us. And indeed, as I watched futher, I did notice they were all in a pother.

So what exactly would be so bad about suddenly becoming French? Other than the whole complexity of verbs, plus having to remember which gender a lamp post happens to be.
You get great food and great wine. I admit those could be a down side for the Baptists who don’t drink. But there is still the food, so it can’t be that. What about scandal free mistresses? You’d think Republicans would love that. They keep getting caught with persons not their wives. National Health and high quality free day care? Surely no body could object to caring for the sick -- especially not a nation that considers itself so Christian, ‘cause Christ was really big on caring for the sick and children. Besides, you’d have to be really pretty callous to say “sure you have diabetes, or cancer and there are meds for that, but you’re poor, so you can just die.” And I have a hard time believing Republicans are evil. So not that. Nuclear Power? Nope, pretty sure the RNC has been pushing for that. High-speed Rail? Who gets worked up in an angry way about trains? Sure the average 3 year old is train mad, but nobody is mad because of trains.

What’s left really? The image of the French man as a considerate lover. I think it really has to be that don’t you? Think about it. The Republicans are always getting so worked up about sex. Gay sex, Fun sex, Kinky sex, extramarital sex, bathroom sex. Sex is pretty much front and center of their world view. So small wonder if the reason turns out to be because they are so bad or insecure about it. Let me give you examples A, B, and M. To whit, Ann Coulter, Bay Buchanan, and Mary Matalin. I think it’s fair to say these women are the leading conservative female public figures: Women who espouse traditional marriage. They are deeply committed to their ideologies. So how have they done in the “get a nice conservative boy” sweepstakes? Ann is 45 and never been married, and since she doesn’t believe in premarital sex, probably never been laid. Bay, has been married, but….. divorced. So apparently conservative guys, not worth marring, and if you do, not worth staying with. But what about Mary you ask? She’s married, has been married to the same guy for the last 16 years, nice family, clearly happy and satisfied. The only catch is, she had to marry a Democrat. Yup. Apparently the only kind of guy who could keep an intelligent, hard charging Republican woman happy -- is not a Republican.

So no wonder the conservatives are terrified American will turn into France, they are already underperforming in the considerate lover sweepstakes, and this will only make things harder for them. Though probably not the right things.

Everything you need to know about the French

Pizza vans will tell you everything you need to know about the French, especially in contrast to Americans.

When you think of pizza and van in the same sentence I bet you imagine some teenage guy driving up to your door in a beat up van. For a few bucks he will hand over a lukewarm dampish doughy concoction with loads of everything, except taste. In France, they have taken that same van and cut the middle of it out. Why? So they could install a proper wood fired brick oven. The vans look very peculiar with their protruding heavily wrapped middles, a bit like Sumo wrestlers crawling around on all fours. The reason for this is that to taste really good, pizza needs to come out of an 800 degree oven within the last 4 minutes, and not be in an enclosed space (like a cardboard box) which will cause the steam to condense and fall back, soggifying the pizza. That, that is commitment: The idea that you need to have portable brick ovens to bring the correct pizza cooking stuff to you, because the idea of a second rate but more convenient pizza is unacceptable.

So there you have it, a nation of people willing to do what ever it takes -- including a casual disregard for the principles of engineering and structural dynamics, judging by the looks of some of these vans -- to get a good meal. Where as Americans, will do what ever it takes -- including flaccid crust and faux cheese goop -- to get a cheap convenient meal.

It is a question of priorities. What part of the expeience of eating matters to you? Is is quantity? Is it taste? Does mounds of melting cheese signify delicious gooyness, or slimy excess? Would you rather have so more experience per bite, or experience more bites?

Of course, judging by the shows on HGTV, this delimma will soon be a thing of the past, with home brick ovens coming into fashion. Now there is the ultimate experssion of modern Americanism -- consume, consume, comsume.

A Reply to Glenn Beck

OK, maybe my problem is the knowledge that Glenn Beck is a strange strange idiot of a man. Still. Seriously, he can't think of a better place to have a tea party than the Alamo? Boston, ding, ding, anyone remember Boston? Plus the whole, Alamo ended badly bit? I digress.

About Free Speech:

The idea that a business is too big to fail, is neither American nor anti-American nor un-American. It may or may not agree with your economic philosophy, but if you cast your economic theory as not simply right, but patriotic, you have just labeled all those who have differing views, Anti-American. So, that whining about having been called names, apparently you don't think that's a *bad* thing, since you yourself have just done it. Of course, (and forgive me while I get technical here) free speech only applies to what the government can tell you, about you can or can not say. So I'm very very confused as to what his problem is here. Is he complaining that it's a violation of his free speech to have people call him names for what he says? Or is he celebrating their free speech in calling him names? Or is he trying to say that free speech doesn't really apply here, cause the gov can call him names, just so long as it doesn't stop him from calling people names. Or, and I think this is most likely, he's pissed because people are objecting to him saying whatever he wants -- he feels like his right to free speech is violated by people disagreeing with him.

About the Market Correcting Itself:

Hey look, I agree that the market will correct itself if left on it's own. It's just that it would take twice as long and be twice as nasty. And require a whole lot more retirees to move in with their kids because they retirement nest eggs have just gone poof. (What can I say, my parents have their money with AIG, so I'm pro bailout.) Glenn maybe able to build a new wing for the rents, but most people would be flat out ticked.

About the Debt Thing:
Boy howdy. The bulk of that debt, that was all Dubya. So nice rhetorical slight of hand trying to make Obama, equally responsible, but no, sorry, not true.

About the We Are All Now Socialists Line:

We are not socialists. Seriously. Would some of the right wingers, please, please, for the love of all that's good, invest in a dictionary? I mean you may not like what's happened, but it's not socialism. Socialism is when the government owns and controls the means of production. It could be stretched to say, owns and controls the banks, but that's a debatable point. What's not debatable is that giving money to a financial institution, wither you like it or not, is not socialism. No company has been taken over. Let me say that sloooooooowly, no company has been taken over by the government. (Excepting failed banks that the FDIC takes hold of for short periods of time. But since that's been going on for a while, I'm assuming that's not what has provoked this outrage.)

Just Grammar Pickiness:
That 8th sentence should read "if you're here legally or illegally, the law applies. You are never too rich or powerful." or perhaps, something else. This is the point of grammar it should help you make your meaning clear. It should not say "if you're here legally or illegally, it applies-never too rich or powerful." Cause frankly, I can't figure out what he means. Now, I'm not perfect in my emails, but I tend to proof read things I hope more than a handful of my friends will see.

The Media isn't in Bed with the Left:

I can't even begin to foam at the mouth enough about the "media gets into bed with one party" comment. I guess, for once, Glenn does get it right, even though he didn't mean to, when he says, "They can't attack the message, so I guess they have to target the messenger." I would love to have witnessed the moment when the right wing, said, "hey have you noticed, that the smartest, best educated people in the country, the ones who follow the news, read source documents, and think about stuff, that those people don't like what we're doing." I spend hours wondering how in a massive leap of illogic, someone went, "well, it can't be that *I'm* wrong and need to evaluate my ideas. It must be that they are wrong. Let's not waste time defending our indefensible ideas. Let's attack them!" I think Karl Rove must have been there -- if only in spirit.

In Which Glenn Joins the ACLU:

And Glenn, such a fan of the Constitution, so glad to hear it. I assume you will be joining the ACLU, the group dedicated to preserving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc. (PS, there are 10 of 'em, No.2 isn't the only one.)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Here is Glenn Beck's take on what the tea parties are about. While not all tea party protesters may agree with all of these items, I think a lot of people agreed on most of them.

What the Tea Parties Are About
April 16, 2009 - 0:33 ET

This is what the tea parties are about:

It's about spending - too much spending, to be specific. The idea that a business is too big to fail is anti-American; we've always been for the underdog.

It's about putting my family - my children - under $12.8 trillion in debt; all it took was two presidents and six months.

It's about the idea that we're all socialists now.

It's about the idea that the government can force companies, banks and states to take money and the strings that are attached to it, that they didn't want.

It's about power - too much power going to federal government.

It's about corruption - too much corruption, in both parties.

It's about the rule of law - that no one is above the law: if you're here legally or illegally, it applies-never too rich or powerful.

It's about if you write the tax code you should pay your taxes.

It's about the Republic, not mob rule.

It's about the concept of free speech - we've been called insane, lunatics and worse, just for speaking out.

It's about the years of lies from both parties - a Republican Party that claims to be for small government but gives us Medicare Part D that's got $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

It's about hypocrisy - both parties claim to be the most ethical, but we get corruption and not one damn person in Washington to speak out against it.

It's about the media that gets into bed with one party and has moved so far left that it can't even begin to see we're not extremists, we're moms and dads who just want to have a Republic for our children; but they can't see it.

But I'm the extremist.

Bush and Obama spend or put us on the hook for $12.8 trillion, but I'm the extremist?

Cap and Trade without any plan on who pays the taxes or where the money goes, but I'm the extremist?

States are looking to apply retroactive taxes - that's like changing the rules in the middle of the game - but I'm the extremist?

Vilifying AIG executives, without any law being broken, just for accepting money they were owed, but I'm the extremist?

Bush and Obama have taken over and want to take over banks, car manufacturers and insurance companies, but I'm the extremist?

The politicians in the House and Senate stuff $20 billion in pork and earmarks into spending bills when we have to beg the Chinese to loan us that money, and I'm the extremist?

A Supreme Court justice and Harold Koh, who will help run the State Department, talk about trans-nationalism and by definition a diminished role for the Constitution, but I'm the extremist?

Politicians openly talk of the Fairness Doctrine - or its ugly twin, "localism" - and curtailing my free speech, but I'm the extremist?

Unions and big labor politicians want to take away the right to a secret ballot, but I'm the extremist?

I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Founding Fathers. I believe in the American people. When did believing those things make someone - anyone - an extremist?

I'm not the extremist.

I learned something from a lawyer friend of mine who won lots of cases in front of judges and lawyers - I asked him how he won so many cases. He said it's easy: If the law supports my client's position I argue the law. If not, I argue the facts. If the facts don't support my client's position, I just attack the opposition.

They can't attack the message, so I guess they have to target the messenger.