Buying bread takes more "bread"

[Baking bread at Big Sky--Portland Press Herald Photo]

There has been little in the way of positive economic news for weeks now. The biggest issue on most American voter’s minds right now, is the health of the U.S. economy.

Just this morning, the Business Tuesday section of the Portland Press Herald had three stories highlighting the rising cost of fuel, food and fears of inflation.

Bakers of bread, pizza makers and others that rely on flour for their livelihood are facing escalating prices, as wheat stockpiles worldwide are at 60-year lows. This is in part due to droughts in Australia, a major world producer of wheat, as well as burgeoning demand for wheat and wheat products in the world’s two most populous countries, China and India.

Owner Andrew Siegel, of When Pigs Fly, a York-based bakery that churns out wonderfully unique breads, is quoted as saying, “It’s kind of a scary time right now.” The scary time he’s referring to is bakeries seeing their flour costs tripling over the past year.
Portland-based Big Sky Bread Company has also seen costs nearly triple from a year ago, with recent prices up 50 percent since the beginning of January.

Martha Elkus, owner of Big Sky Bread says that a 50-pound bag of flour cost about $11 in February 2007, and is now about $30. At about 60 bags per week, that means her weekly flour bill has jumped from less than $700 a year ago to about $1,800 now.

“The person delivering her flour recently joked that he might need an armed guard,” Elkus said.

With flour and wheat products tripling in price and the price of oil at an all-time high, the three remaining presidential contenders will have their hands full with just the U.S. economy, let alone geo-political concerns abroad.

In this context, I’ll leave you the sometimes misogynistic and always-"sunny" Jim Kunstler, with a portion of his take (from Monday’s Clusterfuck Nation).

Whoever wins on November 5 will wake up to preside over a different America than the schematic one he was debating about during the primaries and the election. The long campaign will beat a path straight into the long emergency. The new president will inherit a wrecked banking system, an economy in freefall, a wobbling world oil market, and an American public extremely ticked off by its startling, sudden impoverishment. (This is apart from whatever melodramas spool out on the geopolitical scene.)

The president-elect will quickly realize that the number one problem is not that Americans can't afford health care -- it's that they can't afford anything, because their income is evaporating in terms of both lost jobs and a dollar that is racing toward worthlessness. They'll be hard put to pay for food and gasoline, nevermind Grandma's emphysema treatments. They will be walking away from home ownership -- or yanked kicking and screaming by default-and-repo -- and any government scheme devised to abridge their mortgage contracts will only undermine basic contract law that has made mortgage lending a credible thing in the first place. And that too, of course, would redound straight to a real estate sector already in price free-fall, with no one willing or able to think about buying a house.

One more section from Kunstler to hammer home some reality, in a campaign season filled with delusion and I assign blame widely, both right, left, and to the loopy. Say what you want about Jimbo (and he gets my hackles up on a regular basis), there are few, in my opinion that root the energy/peak oil issue as succinctly and firmly in a reality-based paradigm as he does.

Whoever wakes up as the next president on November 5 will have to preside over the comprehensive reorganization of American life. The big question is whether he can persuade the public to let go of its sunk costs, and all the sheer stuff that represents, and move ahead in a unified way that doesn't end up tearing the nation apart. The danger is that the public will want to mount a kind of last stand effort to defend a way of life that has no future under any circumstances, and they will ask the president to lead that last stand.

To avoid that deadly outcome, the new president will have to be equipped with a realistic vision of what this society can actually do to survive the discontinuities that circumstances present. This will require him to confront the prevailing delusion that the US can become "energy independent" in the sense that we can run WalMart on something other than oil from foreign lands. The new president would have to carefully restate American expectations and goals -- for instance, not to keep all the cars running at all costs, but to get us living in places where driving is not mandatory. I'm concerned that the American people will hate the new president if he tells them the truth: that an old way of life is over and a new one has to begin now. We're about to find out how much "change" the public can really stand.

Happy bread baking!

It's Nader time!

America’s perennial third-party candidate, Ralph Nader, entered the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, on Sunday.

News reports classified Nader as a “consumer advocate,” but it’s been years since the 74-year-old has advocated for anything other than his own narcissistic visions of grandeur.

This will be Nader’s fifth run for president. His top finish in the previous two runs for the top office in the land was 2.7 percent of the vote.

Nader’s reason for running this time is couched in high-minded terms; Nader says its time for a “Jeffersonian revolution;” I’m not quite sure what that means, knowing that he’ll be lucky to top the less than 1 percent of the total vote that he garnered in 2004. No doubt, he’ll get some votes from the cloud of activists that have trouble getting up before noon, to carry their protest signs down to the courthouse square. But a revolution requires a few more votes than that.

Predictably, the two Democrats weren’t pleased, as their party is the one that will be most affected in the general, by any votes that Nader receives. Obama, who has greater pull on the far left, stands to be hurt the most, if Nader’s “piss in the wind” measures up to be anything other than Ralph being Ralph.

“He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about,” Senator Barack Obama said a town-hall meeting Sunday, according to CNN.

I’m open to anyone running who thinks they can make a difference but really, Ralph, your time has passed. You’re 74 and a relic of the 60s. As nostalgic as I tend to be, the issues are bigger than exploding Corvairs and tilting at nuclear reactors.

Go home, install that solar panel on your roof and leave the horserace to more relevant figures.

Clinton/Obama debate lacks fireworks

Last night’s debate was short on fireworks. Many pundits, in offering their pre-debate two cents worth, indicated that Senator Clinton would have to try to come out, guns ablaze, trying to prod Senator Obama into making a major gaffe. That didn’t happen.

The only time anything close to a heated exchange occurred, was on the issue of healthcare coverage. Clinton also appeared to have some designs on pressing Obama on the issue of plagiarism, and charges that his material in his speeches may have been lifted, without conferring credit.

On this issue, Clinton said, “If your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition.”

This brought some cheers, but also a chorus of jeers.

Clinton added, “Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox,” a barb targeted towards her rival's campaign slogan.
Obama was up to the task and shot back that he rejected the accusations that he had stolen language from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, calling the charge “silly season” politics and in a cheeky quip defended his speeches with, “I've got to admit, some of them are pretty good.”

While I still consider myself in the Clinton camp, I thought Mr. Obama acquitted himself well, handled the healthcare accessibility issue well enough (since none of the media people pressed him enough on this) and both candidates were respectful of one another. I still have my issues with Obama on healthcare and accessibility, however. In fact, the differences in both plans are really the difference between healthcare for some and healthcare for all, or true universal care.

Mrs. Clinton, closing strongly, when asked about her greatest personal challenges, alluded to the Monica Lewinsky affair, but demurred that this was minor compared to what “ordinary” Americans go through.

"I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because with all of the challenges that I've had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day," she said, telling of a recent visit to wounded servicemen at a new hospital, in Texas.

And in a generous tribute to the man who is threatening to sink her hopes of becoming the first woman president, Clinton said:

“You know, no matter what happens in this contest, ... I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored,” she said, and reached out to shake her rival's hand.

Both candidates displayed a level of class that isn’t always apparent in the political world.

Mrs. Clinton faces an uphill battle and the next two weeks will decide whether she goes on, possibly to the convention, or whether it becomes a two-horse race, between Obama and McCain.

On a related note, I found an opinion piece in the LA Times that helped me understand why Mrs. Clinton has fared well with Latino voters. The article does a good job of dispelling some of the accusations of “racism” being hurled around. The Clintons have been courting the Latino vote for 16 years, going back to 1992. This history and voting track record remains her best hope for pulling out a victory in the Lone Star State.

Obama-rama

The audacity of hype
Just what else has Obama wrought?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, Feb. 15, 2008 (Boston Herald)

WASHINGTON - There’s no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns - boat, shoe, clock - by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity - salvation - for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival.

“We are the hope of the future,” sayeth Obama. We can “remake this world as it should be.” Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country - nay, we can become “a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world and make this time different than all the rest.”

And believe they do. After eight straight victories - and two more (Hawaii and Wisconsin) almost certain to follow - Obama is near to rendering moot all the post-Super Tuesday fretting about a deadlocked convention with unelected superdelegates deciding the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton can somehow do in Ohio and Texas on March 4 what Rudy Giuliani proved is almost impossible to do - maintain a big-state firewall after an unrelenting string of smaller defeats - the superdelegates will flock to Obama. Hope will have carried the day.

Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the media.

ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience - to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”

That was too much for Time’s Joe Klein. “The message is becoming dangerously self-referential,” he wrote. “The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”

You might dismiss The New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s complaint that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” as hyperbole. Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama’s Potomac primary victory speech with “My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.” When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said, “This is the New Testament.”

I’ve seen only one similar national swoon. Growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania.

But even there the object of his countrymen’s unrestrained affections was no blank slate. Pierre Trudeau was already a serious intellectual who had written and thought and lectured long about his country.

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

[Don't quite agree? Check this out. Cultish to the max!--jb]

Swayed by history

Barack Obama’s dominant showings yesterday, in Wisconsin and particularly, in Hawaii, where he’s viewed as a native son, clearly show that the momentum’s turned his way in the Democratic race for the presidency.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s hope in Tuesday’s primaries was to run close in Wisconsin, which she wasn’t able to do. It now appears that the flickering flames of her lagging campaign may come down to upcoming primaries, dependent on rust belt voters in Ohio and Latino support in the Lone Star State.

I’m not a Barack Obama supporter. When his name first began being whispered as a potential candidate for president, I thought that he was jumping the gun and getting ahead of the curve of his promising political future. It has been my intention and still is that he should have “waited his turn” and paid some dues.

Obama is a politician brimming with charisma, and possesses topnotch oratory skills. However, being president is much more than being an excellent motivational speaker. He’s untested and unproven in the area of governing. Much of the Obama-rama and the accolades cascading his way smack of emotionalism. Having fallen under the “spell” of emotion during my foray into fundamentalist religion, it’s no prettier when witnessed in the realm of politics. Additionally, Obama has gotten favorable press, by and large, and I think this media “bump” has helped him immeasurably. It will be interesting to see if he continues receiving a free pass from the press when (and if) it comes down to Barack, “the Black Kennedy,” vs. Johnny Mac.

I think Obama, like many men with a quest for power and prestige, is in possession of a certain arrogance and need for public adulation. It’s almost as if they feel entitled to their perch above the rest of us. So far, it seems to have paid off, at least in getting the Democrat nod for the presidency. Given the track record of his party, however, I wouldn’t discount McCain’s chances in the general.

Recently, I have decided to have my wife, Mary, do some guest blogging here at Words Matter. If you’ve read her recent posts, you’ll see that she’s firmly in the camp of Mrs. Clinton. Not only has it given you some respite from my writing and choice of topics, I think it has added a valuable perspective—the perspective of a rational woman, with some life experience, as well as, political passion.

When you’ve spent over half of your life with a person, you develop a level of comfort and trust in that person’s views and opinions. If you know Mary, you’ll know that when she’s passionate about something, she’s hard to ignore. It’s more than just persuasion. She’s also a genuine, relational person. That’s probably one of the reasons why as a salesperson, many of her customers have been with her for years. She inspires a loyalty in these customers that make them stay with her, even when Mary’s changed companies. She also has an intuitive sense about things and especially people that I’ve learned to acknowledge.

After 2004, I changed my party affiliation from “Democrat,” to being “unenrolled.” I was fed up with the Democrats, “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight,” as I liked to call them. I felt lukewarm for Kerry and when he rolled over like a drunk, conceding the race immediately, even though there was considerable controversy in Ohio, with allegations of voter fraud; I vowed I was done with the Dems.

Despite this vow, it’s been hard for me to remain on the sidelines. I certainly agree with others, who contend that in America, our political choices are limited and the shades of political choice are difficult to parse. It’s the old “Demicans” vs. “Republicrats” dilemma all over again. Ignoring my better instincts, there’s something about the horserace that drags me back into the political fray.

My wife has been a fan of Hillary for awhile, but that wasn’t always the case. The major reason for this has to do with reading Clinton’s book, Living History, which came out in 2003. Mary is an avid reader. I’ve never known her not to have a book in progress, plus she’s always listening to an audio book, so she plows through a lot authors and titles. She first read former President Clinton’s book, My Life. She was impressed with the book about the scope his life. She then decided to read Mrs. Clinton’s book, which helped her realize that Hillary was “an amazing woman.” I can already hear the gnashing of teeth of the Hillary-haters, brought on by that statement.

Mary contends that on the basis of reading her book, she believes that HRC is a person motivated by the desire to do good and make a difference in the lives of others, especially women and children. Oddly, these qualities, and her advocacy for these groups, which, by the way, are certainly a matter of public record, often get overlooked. Instead, we have commentators on both the right and the left criticizing her for her ambition, her brashness, for being “too tough,” and even going so far as comparing her to Shakespeare’s, “Lady Macbeth.” These very same qualities and strengths are lauded in men, particularly if exhibited during the battles of political blood sport.

On Friday, Mary came home with Living History, in audiobook form. While my wife is out and about most of her work day, my 9 to 5 experience involves days on the road and then, playing catch up in the office. This week, my only time behind the wheel has been traveling 20 minutes to work and then, back home.

The first cassette of the 18 that make up the audiobook of Living History was sitting on my seat, Tuesday (I had President’s Day off) morning. Mary had mentioned that she’d feed me a tape at a time, to see if I wanted to continue.

Driving to Lewiston, for work on Tuesday, I was captivated, hearing the genesis of Mrs. Clinton’s life and her surroundings. Granted, autobiographies tend to highlight the better qualities and minimize those things that are less flattering. Still, hearing about where she came from, her experiences growing up in Illinois and the stories of her parents and the town where she came of age struck a chord with me. Maybe it’s because I’m spending almost all of my time away from work detailing my own life story, growing up in a small Maine town, for a new book. Or maybe I’m just a sucker for people’s stories about their formative years, but for the past two days, Living History has been difficult to pop out of the cassette player, before turning the car off and heading into the office, for work.

I’ve enjoyed reading author and radio personality, Studs Terkel’s books about the American experience. While Terkel was born in 1912, he didn’t publish his first book until 1957, when he was 45. Another decade would pass before Division Street was released. I recently picked up The Studs Terkel Reader, which I’ve been going through, a chapter here, a chapter there. Some of my favorite stories have been the ones taken from Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression.

Mary and I journeyed westward towards the Chicago of Studs Terkel, in July, 1983. We ended up marooned in the post-industrial graveyard of northwest Indiana. Both 21, married less than a year and expecting our first child in December, we drew upon whatever inner strength we had, a reservoir we weren't aware of at the time, but one that was put there by the experiences of our past.

I couldn’t appreciate it at the time, but the archetype for our journey to Indiana, had been forged by another young couple, nearly 60 years earlier. My paternal grandparents, Michael and Anna Baumer, had journeyed across the Atlantic Ocean, from Kleinschwand, Germany, aboard an ocean liner. They arrived and passed through Ellis Island, on January 11, 1924. From there, they made their way to Lisbon Falls, where my Opa worked at the Worumbo Mill and put down the root that I would be later become grafted into.

As I listen to the audiobook narrator read Hillary’s story, I recognize that like Mary and I were forced to, she’s been drawing on her own personal reservoir of strength, one that is rooted in the story of her own mother, forced to fend for herself, at the age of four. Later, her mother, Dorothy, deprived of love and affection early in her life, managed to learn how to love and nurture her own daughter. Living History is a testament to her story and her impartation of strength to her firstborn child. Women from Hillary’s generation, the ones that broke away from typical gender roles and stereotypes, were spurred on by their mothers. While her father (shaped by many of the same depression era experiences Terkel chronicled) certainly helped shape the woman she would become, countless times, particularly when struggling with Wellesley and being away from home for the first time, it was her mother that demanded that she "tough it out," rather than return home, which would have satisfied her father. I think her mother, the woman who Hillary wrote, “cried the entire 1,000 mile trip back to Park Ridge,” recognized that if Hillary returned home and went to school nearby, she would never tap her true potential.

For a period of time in my life, I truly believed that incrementalism and parsing of minimal differences made supporting a presidential candidate meaningless. My recent experiences with workforce training have revealed that government programs can make substantive differences in people’s lives. I try to imagine what could be accomplished if training dollars were reinstated and I had the opportunity to double the number of programs I was able to run. Hence, my political beliefs have modified into a more pragmatic approach than in the past.