Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Gone With the Myths

Op-Ed Contributor

ON Dec. 20, 1860, 169 men — politicians and people of property — met in the ballroom of St. Andrew’s Hall in Charleston, S.C. After hours of debate, they issued the 158-word “Ordinance of Secession,” which repealed the consent of South Carolina to the Constitution and declared the state to be an independent country. Four days later, the same group drafted a seven-page “Declaration of the Immediate Causes,” explaining why they had decided to split the Union.

The authors of these papers flattered themselves that they’d conjured up a second American Revolution. Instead, the Secession Convention was the beginning of the Civil War, which killed some 620,000 Americans; an equivalent war today would send home more than six million body bags.

The next five years will include an all-you-can-eat special of national remembrance. Yet even after 150 years full of grief and pride and anger, we greet the sesquicentennial wondering, why did the South secede?

I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.

South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states ... have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”

Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”

Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”

Several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” Lincoln’s election to the White House meant, for South Carolina, that “the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms.

Edward Ball, the author of “Slaves in the Family,” is writing a biography of the photographer Eadweard Muybridge.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Tips for Saving Money on Food

Ten Signs You’re Wasting Money on Food

Welcome to Macheesmo! If this is your first time here, you might want to learn about Macheesmo! Also, I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for reading!

There’s a huge amount of Internet material about how to save money on food costs. So I thought I’d take a bit different approach in this post and list some signs of wasted money on food.

After all, if you know where you’re wasting money, it becomes a whole lot easier to save money!

1) Your Freezer is Empty. Freezers are kitchen savings accounts. Food equals money right? Freezers let you put food (and therefore money) in a place to use it later. So, if you aren’t using your freezer to store soups, meats, and even some baked goods, then you’re probably throwing money away.

The freezer is like an emergency fund. For your stomach.

2) You Never Make Soups or Stocks. Using leftover veggies or even scraps to make a simple stock is one of the best ways to extract more use out of your food (why do you think restaurants do it?).

You can also use spare onions or spices to mix up a nice winter soup for very little cash. I made a double batch of this kidney bean soup last year. It cost me under $10 (I did have most of the spices I needed). The soup fed me and Betsy for 3 dinners and we froze half of it for later.

3) You Buy Things in Boxes. If everything you buy is square then you probably aren’t buying enough bulk ingredients and whole foods. That means that you’re paying other people to process the food for you. Even the box of pre-washed spinach has extra costs over the stuff you have to wash yourself.

There are probably exceptions to this one and some things only come in boxes, but it’s not a good sign if your grocery cart is like a game of Tetris.

4) You Cook Things Quickly. Think about things that cook quickly: Pre-made meals, seafoods, and expensive cuts of meat. Think about things that cook slowly: dried beans, cheaper cuts of meat like roasts, and even cheaper veggies like potatoes. Generally, things that take longer to cook cost less.

Of course, there’s a time and place for a quick meal. Just know that in a lot of cases you are trading time for money (which is maybe what you want to do). Also, turns out that those slow cooked dishes tend to be really delicious.

5) Your Credit Card Statement Looks Like a Yelp Search. There’s been some debate about the fact that eating out is more expensive than cooking, but I think it’s definitely true. Even if you’re eating crazy-cheap fast food, I believe there are hidden health costs which will surface later.

Meanwhile, if you stock your kitchen with reasonably inexpensive bulk ingredients, you can make a number of meals with a fairly low $/meal cost.

6) You Never Eat Beans. For their versatility and nutrition, beans are about as good as it gets. And they cost, well, beans. Even the canned varieties are very reasonable. If you get used to making a batch of beans once a week, it’s a great way to trim inches off your waist and put dollars in your pocket.

Some good bean recipes to get you started:
- Tostado Stacks
- Three Chile Quesadillas
- Spicy Black Bean Patties

7) Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts are Your Standard. Honestly, I don’t get the appeal of this cut of meat. I find it completely flavorless. But I know it’s very popular. Because it takes a lot of time to process (and wastes a lot during processing), it’s one of the most expensive cuts you can buy.

Just buy the breasts with the bone in and skin on and you can cut down your weekly grocery budget.

8) You’re a Picky Eater. If you’re picky, it’s harder to buy seasonal food. It’s harder to buy the stuff on sale. Basically, it makes everything harder. This might be a difficult thing to change, but if you can learn to try new things you might be surprised with what you like. And you might be able to save some money in the process.

9) You Only Shop at One Store. Some stores mark up certain items and discount other items (loss leaders). But there’s not always rhyme or reason to what items stores discount. An example: Spices are one of the most expensive things you can buy in a normal supermarket, but if you go to a bulk store or some ethnic stores, you can get them for a fraction of the cost.

The point is, if you have the time, try to figure out what stores discount what items.

10) List? What List? I have a hard time with this one sometimes. As a food lover, I find myself wandering through aisles like a kid in a candy store. If I don’t start with a list, I spend $10-$15 extra dollars in the store without fail. I can’t be the only one.

Spend ten minutes before you hit the stores planning your menu for the week. I use a Google Calendar for this that way I can go back and look at previous menus.

I’m sure this list is just a start. What do you all think? What are some signs of wasting money on food?

Fascinating look at Harriet Tubman

November 29, 2010, 9:52 pm

Moses’ Last Exodus

Wilmington, Del., Nov. 30, 1860
The knock came after dark. Hastening to answer it, the old Quaker found a familiar figure in the doorway: a tiny, dark-skinned woman, barely five feet tall, with a kerchief wrapped around her head. Someone who didn’t know her might have taken her for an ordinary poor black woman begging alms – were it not for her eyes. Wide-set, deep-socketed and commanding, they were the eyes not of a pauper or slave, but of an Old Testament hero, a nemesis of pharaohs and kings.
Harriet Tubman, circa 1860s. 
Library of Congress Harriet Tubman, circa 1860s.
Five others followed her: a man and woman, two little girls and, cradled in a basket, the swaddled form of a tiny infant, uncannily silent and still. They had braved many dangers and hardships together to reach this place of safety, trusting their lives to the woman known as “the Moses of her people.”
As politicians throughout the country debated secession and young men drilled for war, Harriet Tubman had been plotting a mission into the heart of slave territory. She did not know that it would be her last. Over the past 10 years, she had undertaken about a dozen clandestine journeys to the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, the place from which she herself had escaped in 1849. She had managed to bring some six dozen people – most of them family and friends – across the Mason-Dixon Line into freedom, then across the Canadian border to safety. But Tubman had never managed to liberate several of her closest relatives: her younger sister Rachel and Rachel’s two children, Ben and Angerine. In the autumn of 1860, she decided to rescue them.
Slave ads from a newspaper on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1859 
Slave ads from a newspaper on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1859. CLICK TO ENLARGE
Although it lay on the border between North and South and had few large plantations, the part of Maryland east of the Chesapeake Bay was an especially hazardous place to be a slave. Soil depletion and economic stagnation had left many local planters with more field hands than they needed – as well as chronically short of cash. By the mid-19th century, the Eastern Shore had become known as one of the nation’s principal “breeder” regions, where slaves were frequently sold to slave traders, speculators who sent them south to the burgeoning cotton and sugar plantations of the Gulf Coast. As a child, Tubman had seen two of her own sisters sold away, and heard her parents’ anguished tales of others taken before her birth. Four of her remaining siblings had escaped, three of them helped by their sister Harriet. Only Rachel had remained.
By this time, Tubman was well connected to the nationwide abolitionist movement, and before departing, she raised money for the trip (and for possible bribes along the way) from Wendell Phillips and other activists. She set out from her home in Auburn, N.Y., and by mid-November she was in Maryland.
Tubman arrived to learn that her sister would never know freedom: Rachel had died a short time earlier. There were still the two children, her niece and nephew, to rescue. Here too, Tubman failed. She set a rendezvous point in the woods near the plantation where the two were held, but they failed to appear at the appointed time. Tubman waited all through that night and the following one, crouching behind a tree for shelter from the wind and driving snow. At last she gave up. Ben and Angerine’s fate is unknown.
Ad for a runaway slave, in Macon (Georgia) Daily Telegraph, Nov. 30, 1860. 
Ad for a runaway slave, in Macon (Georgia) Daily Telegraph, Nov. 30, 1860. CLICK TO ENLARGE
Tubman had, however, found another family that was ready to seek freedom: Stephen and Maria Ennals and their children, six-year-old Harriet, four-year-old Amanda and a three-month-old infant. (One or two other men may have joined them as well.) The fugitives made their way up the peninsula, traveling mostly by night. Once, they were pursued by slave patrollers alerted to their presence. The escapees hid on an island in the middle of a swamp, covering the baby in a basket. Eventually a lone white man appeared, strolling casually along the edge of the marsh, seemingly talking to himself. They realized he was an agent of the Underground Railroad, telling them how to reach a barn where they could take shelter.
As they continued on their journey, Tubman would go out each day in search of food while the Ennalses hid in the woods, their baby drugged with an opiate to keep it from crying. Returning at the end of the day, Tubman would softly sing a hymn until they heard her and reemerged:
Hail, oh hail, ye happy spirits,
Death no more shall make you fear,
Grief nor sorrow, pain nor anguish,
Shall no more distress you dere.
Even as the group approached Wilmington, it was not yet out of danger: Delaware was still officially a slave state. In fact, due to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the escapees could have been recaptured anywhere in the North and returned to bondage. Tubman herself could have been re-enslaved, or – as an abettor of fugitives – sentenced to spend the rest of her life in a Maryland prison. But at last, on the night of Nov. 30, she reached the house of the elderly Quaker, Thomas Garrett, a leading Underground Railroad “conductor” who would smuggle the Ennals family to relative safety in Philadelphia.
Although the Underground Railroad had already become famous – and, for many Americans, infamous – only a tiny percentage of slaves managed to escape to the North: estimates have put the number at just a thousand or so each year out of a total enslaved population of some four million. Still, these fugitives were a major bone of contention for disgruntled Southerners. An adult field hand could cost as much as $2,000, the equivalent of a substantial house. To Southerners, then, anyone who helped a man or woman escape bondage was simply a thief. But more infuriating than the monetary loss it occasioned, the Underground Railroad was an affront to the slaveholders’ pride – and a rebuke to those who insisted that black men and women were comfortable and contented in bondage.
Related
Civil War Timeline
Fort Sumter
An unfolding history of the Civil War with photos and articles from the Times archive and ongoing commentary from Disunion contributors.
In an 1860 speech, Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia thundered against Republicans “engaged in stealing our property” and thus “daily committing offences against the people and property of these … States, which, by the laws of nations, are good and sufficient causes of war.” As secession loomed, some Northerners attempted to soothe such fears. A New York Times editorial suggested not only that stronger efforts be made to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, but that the federal government compensate slaveholders for their escaped “property.”
Tubman was back in Auburn by Christmas Day, 1860, having conveyed the Ennals family safely to Canada. (Abolitionists often noted the irony of Americans fleeing the “land of liberty” to seek freedom under Queen Victoria’s sheltering scepter.) Her secret missions ended with the approach of war.
But one night in the midst of the secession crisis, while staying at the house of another black leader, a vision came to Tubman in a dream that all of America’s slaves were soon to be liberated – a vision so powerful that she rose from bed singing. Her host tried in vain to quiet her; perhaps their grandchildren would live to see the day of jubilee, he said, but they themselves surely would not. “I tell you, sir, you’ll see it, and you’ll see it soon,” she retorted, and sang again: “My people are free! My people are free.”

'Fresh' food may be a year old: Choice

November 30, 2010
From the Sydney Morning Herald
They might look fresh, but due to advances in food technology, some produce can be up to a year old before it's sold.

It might look fresh, but due to advances in food technology, some produce can be up to a year old before it's sold.
Fresh produce at supermarkets is not always as it seems, with some apples sold up to a year after harvest and lamb sometimes months after slaughter, consumer group Choice says.
Shoppers need to closely scrutinise produce, be wary of supermarkets and even shun some "fresh" produce in favour of frozen varieties, Choice said today.
"Developments in food technology and storage ensure we have a wide range of fruit and vegetables available all year round," Choice spokesman Ingrid Just said.
"But can you call apples that are nine months old truly fresh?"
Many fruit and vegetables are imported from long distances overseas, which often means they are picked well before they are ripe and stored.
The chemical 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) was increasingly being used to "block" the ripening of fruit and vegetables, with apples stored for up to a year, which can lessen flavour.
"When in doubt, reach for frozen or canned options, as these can be more nutritious than 'fresh' produce transported over long distances and stored for extended periods," Ms Just said.
Meanwhile, Choice also said vacuum-packed meat was stored in carbon dioxide and nitrogen to inhibit the growth of micro-organisms.
Lamb cutlets could be stored up to 112 days and chilled beef mince up to 44 days.
Choice recommends shoppers be "wary" and suggests better-quality produce may be found at specialist stores, such as butchers or fruit and vegetable shops.
The consumer group also suggested shoppers buy produce that is in season.
AAP

Monday, December 06, 2010

While not normally my favorite editorialist, this one is definitely interesting...

Op-Ed Columnist

The Big American Leak

O.K. I admit it. I enjoy reading other people’s mail as much as the next guy, so going through the WikiLeaks cables has made for some fascinating reading. What’s between the lines in those cables, though, is another matter. It is a rather sobering message. America is leaking power.

Josh Haner/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

Let’s start, though, with what’s in the cables. I think I’ve figured it out: Saudi Arabia and its Arab neighbors want the U.S. to decapitate the Iranian regime and destroy its nuclear facilities so they can celebrate in private this triumph over the hated Persians, while publicly joining with their people in the streets in burning Uncle Sam in effigy, after we carry out such an attack on Iran — which will make the Arab people furious at us. The reason the Arab people will be furious at us, even though many of them don’t like the Persians either, is because they dislike their own unelected leaders even more and protesting against the Americans, who help to keep their leaders in power, is a way of sticking it to both of us.

Are you with me?

While the Saudis are urging us to take out Iran’s nuclear capability, we learn from the cables that private Saudi donors today still constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide — not to mention the fundamentalist mosques, charities and schools that spawn the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So basically our oil payments are cycled through Saudi Arabia and end up funding the very militants whom our soldiers are fighting. But don’t think we don’t have allies. ... The cables tell us about Ahmed Zia Massoud, an Afghan vice president from 2004 to 2009, who now owns a palatial home in Dubai, where, according to one cable, he was caught by customs officials carrying $52 million in unexplained cash. It seems from these cables that the U.S. often has to pay leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan to be two-faced — otherwise they would just be one-faced and against the U.S. in both public and private.

Are you still with me?

Yes, these are our allies — people whose values we do not and never will share. “O.K.,” our Saudi, Gulf, Afghan and Pakistani allies tell us, “we may not be perfect, but the guys who would replace us would be much worse. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are one-faced. They say what they mean in public and private: They hate America.”

That’s true, but if we are stuck supporting bad regimes because only worse would follow, why can’t we do anything to make them reform? That brings us to the sobering message in so many of these cables: America lacks leverage. America lacks leverage in the Middle East because we are addicted to oil. We are the addicts and they are the pushers, and addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.

When we import $28 billion a month in oil, we can’t say to the Saudis: “We know the guys who would come after you would be much worse, but why do we have to choose between your misrule and corruption and their brutality and intolerance?” We’re just stuck supporting a regime that, sure, fights Al Qaeda at home, but uses our money to fund a religious ideology, schools, mosques and books that ensure that Al Qaeda will always have a rich pool of recruits in Saudi Arabia and abroad. We also lack leverage with the Chinese on North Korea, or with regard to the value of China’s currency, because we’re addicted to their credit.

Geopolitics is all about leverage. We cannot make ourselves safer abroad unless we change our behavior at home. But our politics never connects the two.

Think how different our conversations with Saudi Arabia would be if we were in the process of converting to electric cars powered by nuclear, wind, domestic natural gas and solar power? We could tell them that if we detect one more dollar of Saudi money going to the Taliban then they can protect themselves from Iran.

Think how different our conversations with China would be if we had had a different savings rate the past 30 years and China was not holding $900 billion in U.S. Treasury securities — but was still dependent on the U.S. economy and technology. We would not be begging them to revalue their currency, and maybe our request that China prevent North Korea from shipping ballistic missile parts to Iran via Beijing airport (also in the cables) wouldn’t be rebuffed so brusquely.

And think how much more leverage our sanctions would have on Iran if oil were $20 a barrel and not $80 — and Iran’s mullah-dictators were bankrupt?

Fifty years ago, the world was shaped in a certain way, to promote certain values, because America had the leverage to shape it that way. We have been steadily losing that leverage because of our twin addictions to Middle East oil and Chinese credit — and the WikiLeaks show just what crow we have to eat because of that. I know, some problems — like how we deal with a failing state like Pakistan that also has nukes — are innately hard, and ending our oil and credit addictions alone will not solve them. But it sure would give us more leverage to do so — and more insulation from the sheer madness of the Middle East if we can’t.