Your Daily Starbucks 11/13/13

Your daily Starbucks 11/13/13

I had coffee in the house, but I only had fat-free half and half.  I had purchased it instead of regular half-and-half in a fractured moment of aspirational virtuousness at the grocery store before finally admitting to myself that fat-free half-and-half seems like it should be great, but in the end is really no better than hotel porn. And the Starbucks is pretty close to where I live, so.

It’s in a strip mall with a Chinese restaurant and a CHASE bank. The building next door has a blood bank and there are signs that say “parking for blood donors ONLY” – even in morally compromised California people usually avoid those spots, but it clogs up everywhere else especially in the morning time. There is a really weird drive through; one lane is for the coffee and the other is for the CHASE bank because clearly the building used to only be a bank and had two drive through lanes. People get mixed up, and it’s a problem. In my travels I note that many Starbucks’ are in former banks, and I wonder what this means. 

Today there is also a Cintas uniform truck double parked and with the drive through cars and the Cintas truck and the blood bank spots, it’s pretty much gridlock. So I drive all the way around the corner and park at the Extended Stay America and a security guard tells me I can’t park there, hotel guests only. So I tell him I am a hotel guest and I’m just going to get coffee, and he says what room are you in and I say “yes” and keep walking.

Inside there is a big line, but this is normal at this Starbucks at this time of day. They’re usually pretty fast. But we all know it depends not on the furiously kinetic baristas, but on who is in line. Right away I spot two problems.

1. Another Barista who is off shift and I can just tell that he’s gonna use his code and order something super complicated and talk jargon for ages with the other barista. Which he does.

2. A young woman in medical scrubs who is shuffling about 4 different credit cards. I can just tell she’s gonna place a separate order with each card since she must be the designated coffee runner for the office. And she does.

The guy right in front of me is a talker. Which is basically not allowed since the advent of smartphones. You just fondle your screen, even if it’s just for pretend, and it’s the human equivalent of a Do Not Disturb sign.So the guy’s phone rings and his phone is like a super old flip phone and he actually leaves the line to take his call. No one does that. Then he comes back, so naturally I give him back his spot, and then he wants to be super chatty. His mom called, he said, and I thought “how does a man your age have a living mother” but I don’t say anything, I just smile a little bit and mess with my phone.

The off shift barista is talking jargon and the medical girl is on her 3^rd drink order with the separate cards. *Beatriz* is the name to write on the cup for the [whatever complicated thing]. I’ve always thought if I had an unusual name, I would never use that name at Starbucks. I’d just say “Nathan” or something easy instead of “Thaddeus” and I don’t see a problem. But now medical girl is spelling B-E-A-T-R-I-Z to the barista, who can’t hear her, has never heard that name, and is just asking her to repeat it.

At this point I question whether it would have been faster to do the drive through. I also castigate myself for forgetting to make a note of which car I would have been behind so I could look out the window and see when that vehicle is served and determine whether or not I made the correct decision. But I forgot, and now I feel sad. Yet I also have an existential conundrum about the drive through, because I don’t want a coffee trip to feel like a trip to, say, In-and-Out. I would always prefer to go inside unless 3 or more cars after whichever entered the drive through line at the same time I entered the store were served. That’s the price in time I’m willing to pay for this experience, but I couldn't really explain why. And if I could, I would, because I’m a man who does not mind writing 2,000 words about a trip to Starbucks.

Then I start thinking computational thoughts, and I wonder how many specific things a barista has to know. It’s a lot. Then there are the different focus areas: drive through, register, espresso, blender, oven, retail, condiment bar bussing, and many others. Each of these has hundreds of individual tasks, and many baristas are trained in numerous focus areas. They aren’t paid any better than they were 10 years ago when Starbucks menu was 1/3 the size and there was no drive through. In order to survive all of this they all drink Red Bull, a product they do not sell and consider their competition in the marketplace.

There is a barista who I guess I would call an expediter, and she makes eye contact before I get to the register and asks me what I want. This is my favorite part, because I almost always say “grande coffee” and they look so relieved; I can see the thought bubble above their head that says “yes, an easy one.” And I take a stupid, small measure of pride in this.

She rings me up and it’s $1.95. I give $2 and I hate nickels so don’t want change. However, this prompts the barista to treat the nickel as a tip, which I don’t want, because giving someone a nickel tip is an insult, but baristas are trained to act super appreciative for tips, so she acts all happy, and I think to myself I wish there were a way to explain that I’m not tipping her, because if I were it would be more, but I just don’t like nickels. But this all seems way too complicated yet it would also be rude to basically give someone a nickel and then say “I’m not tipping you”. So what I do is I just give the 2 dollars and move quickly away, creating the impression that the nickel is meaningless. This usually works but sometimes they call out to me and give it back to me, and in that case I take it but feel awkward.

So I go over to the condiment bar and chatty guy is there blocking access to the half-and-half with a very slow process of opening individual sugar packets and stirring them in to his drink. His position shifts slightly, so I deftly but respectfully reach for the half and half. It is almost empty, and the person before me did that thing where they think that by unscrewing the cap almost all the way, more half-and-half will somehow be available. But my judgment of what remained was off because the overly unscrewed cap threw off the balance and feel of the thermos, and in a quick slug all the remaining half-and-half disappears into my cup. This is awkward because chatty guy also wanted some.So had to do the thing where you drink some  right there so you can put the lid on. But it was still super full and when that happens, coffee drips out the side where the seam on the cup meets the lid. I don't like the smell of coffee and fingers.  

Phones, Checks, and Photographs

11/2/13

I teach a lot of college music lessons. It’s what I mostly do. Mostly, it’s what I do. It’s what I do, mostly. Meaning that I’m semi-employed, and of the stuff I get paid for, most of it is teaching college music lessons. I get paid by a lot of checks. From the State of California, from some kid’s dad, from the San Francisco Symphony, from a Japanese girl in San Jose.

I don’t hear any complaints about the depositing-checks-with-phone-pics apps. So I guess it must be working for everyone. I have roughly an 80% failure rate with mine (CHASE). The camera flashes about 3 seconds before the pic snaps, and there are no camera settings in the phone app and no way to change this. 

So, I set the check on a dark background and aim a flashlight at it leaving only one hand to hold the camera. Then I form a pincer with my thumb and middle finger to hold the phone along a horizontal plane directly above and parallel to the check, allowing me to press the pic button with my index finger. Then I aim the flashlight with my left hand in such a way as not to cause any bright spots on the check itself, but rather to illuminate the whole area around the check as evenly as possible. I am good at this. Using this technique I get an excellent shot, then flip the check over to do the back and submit. Then 8/10 times it says there was an “error” but no info on what the error was. Then I try again and again. If it finally works, I cancel all of my lessons and have a beer. 

When successful, the process generates two emails indicating the deposit has been processed and accepted. At this point I should shred the check, but I do not. I still fear a further error of some kind and so I keep it sitting around, quickly forgetting whether or not I attempted to deposit it. In passing it occurs to me I should put a post-it note on the check that says “this one was accepted” and the date, but I do not. Then I think about other things I should shred, and quickly gather them up. I shred about two documents, and then remember that I have gross stuff in the trash, and I could probably throw the rest of the documents out because they will get soaked with bacon grease and coffee grounds and cat litter right away. I do this and I remember that I am embarrassed that I have a cat, but actually like the cat.

Then the next day I drive to the bank with my other endorsed checks that didn't process and deposit them in person. Then they tell me to have a nice day. Then I say thank you, I will, and today is already looking up because I was able to deposit my checks that I endorsed yesterday at my apartment, and I made those checks feel special by pointing a flashlight at them and photographing them over and over again, and I think they liked it and possibly had something to do with the deposit failure because they just wanted attention. 

Then I think about my failed relationships. But I’m happy the teller has them, my precious checks that I loved so well and treated so good, and I hope he gives them the star treatment like I did, but that in any event the funds do end up in my account, since I incurred two bounce fees at midnight after the other two checks didn't clear but had bills paid against them already. Then the teller gives me one back and tells me it’s already been deposited and I realize I really should start up that thing with the post-it notes, and also that the other check is living with bacon grease et. al.

So yeah. I will have a nice day. The same to you, and thank you. 

What Might Be

What Might Be

2014.

We are not getting smarter, just gathering facts. Occasionally a fact comes along that contradicts an earlier fact, and if so we resist the new fact with all our might. Then if we have no choice but to recognize the validity of the new fact we say “hmm, yes, yes, makes perfect sense” and talk about how obvious and inescapable the newer fact always was.

For instance, in the Middle Ages those who believed the earth was round based on scientific evidence were not only doubted, but imprisoned or killed. This was so even when irrefutable proof existed. Finally one day everyone agreed the earth was round and stopped talking about when they all believed it was flat. There wasn’t even an awkward moment when they changed their minds and felt bad about it, they just changed them and never looked back. This is probably not true but let's take it like this, it will help me later. It probably did take a while and at least a few people were vexed by the whole thing.

What we need to do is keep looking at our list of facts for relationships, themes and variations, causes and effects. But adding facts to the list is thought of as better, so that’s mainly what we try and do. It is only when the relationships bonk us in the head with their obviousness that we see them. Then we say “hmm, yes, yes, makes perfect sense”. In practical everyday terms we ought to understand this intuitively; the only thing that really matters is how stuff relates. Stuff on its own is just whatever it is. Scorpions don't matter at all if they don't bite you. Unless wait, are they responsible for sinkholes in Florida? No, still nothing.

We really have done a fine job with our fact list, so that’s good, but we should spend more time looking for the relationships. Our list is long enough for the time being, and it will be a more helpful list if we can figure out how it all fits together. Just by doing this, innumerable facts will be added. The best way to do this is to take the current fact list and draw a line between each fact and all of the facts it relates to. The facts with the most lines going into and out of them are the ones we should focus on. Let me get the ball rolling.

Everything starts with potential energy. Everything. The ball wasn’t rolling until something caused it to move. If you draw lines out from potential energy, you will find it connects with each and every fact on our list, and that is the basis for my Theory of Potential Energy, which is that what might be rules everything that happens in the known and unknown world.

The potential energy inside every atom at this moment is sufficient to destroy the entire planet. The nervousness you feel before a first date is also caused by the same potential energy. Something will happen on that date. Potential energy is responsible for that something. Potential energy can destroy the universe, or your date.

Physicists speak of two types of energy: potential and kinetic. Kinetic energy is measured when bodies are in motion. Potential energy is measured when bodies are at rest but have the potential for motion. The coffee mug precariously resting on the desk with nearly half its mass hanging over the edge has a lot of potential energy. When it falls, that energy becomes kinetic. The thing is, bodies always have a potential for motion, but you have to expand your definition of motion beyond what physicists have on their fact list. If you do, then everything has potential energy at all times.

When I climbed through a sealed off crawlspace in my basement that had not been used in fifty years it might have seemed unlikely that there was any potential energy down there. When I pried off the nails holding the plywood cover on the entrance to the crawlspace I was messing with the type of potential energy physicists talk about. When I conked myself in the head with the plywood that came loose all at once, I was conked by potential energy turned kinetic. Then when I found an unopened bottle of Johnny Walker Blue in the very back and didn’t come out for nine hours, it turned out there was even more potential energy down there.

Potential energy always needs a catalyst, but almost anything can be a catalyst. The potential energy in the Johnny Walker was increased dramatically when I conked my head because 1) there was now direct access to the Johnny Blue and 2) I was pissed off and thirsty when I got back there and thus my own foolishness in conking myself made me all the happier to find rare expensive liquor in my basement even though drinking it in silence in the company of spiders did not befit the grandeur of the discovery. Later it actuated another type of potential energy when my wife poked me in the ribs with the empty bottle while yelling at me, and then she divorced me. The potential energy in the plywood hatch became kinetic in the most unexpected way and ended our marriage. As Newton’s second Law states: energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transferred. So when my marriage ended, the energy did not die with it. I may well return that energy back to other, unopened bottles of Johnny Walker.

Some people profess to have certain fears which we call phobias. These are nothing more than fear of the consequences of different types of potential energy. Whatever your phobia, at its root it is actually Potential Energy Phobia. If you are afraid of heights you are afraid of the potential for falling. It’s not that mere elevation is scary in its own right. If you were in someone’s basement in Denver, Colorado (elevation 5,270 ft) you wouldn’t feel afraid of heights at that moment. But if you were on someone’s roof in Death Valley, California (elevation 282 below sea level) you would feel very afraid of heights due to the potential energy associated with falling. We are rarely afraid of that which is, but nearly always afraid of that which might be. 

The word ‘might’ is linguistic potential energy. It is also the case that might can be neither created nor destroyed. Might always leads to is in some form or another, and is always causes new might, and on and on it goes. If you are afraid of open spaces, what are you really afraid of? Might. This holds true for fear of the number 13 (it might be unlucky), fear of the sun (it might burn me), fear of the dark (there might be stuff in there), fear of yellow (everything might be pee!), fear of foreign languages (ok this one makes no sense). If you don’t believe in fear of yellow or fear of foreign languages then look them up: Xanthophobia and Xenoglossophobia. There is even phobophobia which is fear of phobias. This is the only instance in the history of the universe where energy has been created or destroyed. Fear of fear is a self-annihilating concept, and people who have this condition also have brain matter more dense than a collapsed star.

Those who specialize in creating the phobia fact-list have identified over six hundred separate kinds. For people who are afraid of the manifestations of potential energy, naming them helps them feel like they have some kind of a handle on things, the way my wife had a handle on her potential energy when she poked me with the Johnny Walker bottle and then divorced me. Here again I say it isn’t the creation of a long list that is helpful, but rather figuring out how the items on the list interact and how their roots connect.

Another way to get a handle on the potential energy problem is to try and become its master. Humans won’t even acknowledge the existence of the Theory of Potential Energy and yet we hold in high esteem and observe with a sense of awe those who can test the boundaries of potential and kinetic energy a few moments at a time. This is why the circus has a clown riding a unicycle holding a birthday cake. There is not only a potential for falling but also the potential for ruining a perfectly good cake which magnifies the consequences of what happens if the potential energy defeats the cycling clown. It makes us tense and nervous even though it is not our cake and we don’t really care what happens to it. Upon closer inspection the cake might be a plastic model, so the clown has eliminated some of the potential energy without us knowing.

We have a love and fear of that which is precarious. It is impressive when people can master a precarious situation; they tempt potential energy intentionally and try not to let it become kinetic. This is because something deep within us that has feared consequences for millions of years is on alert. Our genes know of energy that which our minds have yet to learn. Our mind makes the fact list but it is our genes that insist on understanding the relationships. This is why we watch snake charmers, motorcycle races, cliff divers, parachutists, car accidents (even in the other lane), volcanoes, skate boarders, jugglers, trapeze artists, and the movie Jaws. They speak to our genes.

When I was walking around the other day someone was trying to parallel park and she wasn’t very good at it and kept mashing her tires into the curb, which should have been a sign to turn the other way but didn’t motivate her to do so. The tires were making a horrible scratching sound on the curb and were getting deformed as she kept mashing them against the concrete. I was sure they would burst, and I was told as a child that a burst car tire could kill a man. I envisioned bits of steel-belted radial flying everywhere and some cutting into my cheek. I would be able to taste the metal in my mouth and smell the rubber burning, although I’m not sure why it would be burning but it is in my fantasy, and so it would burn my skin too, and I’d have steel belted radial shrapnel in my mouth via my cheek which is bleeding and smelling of burnt rubber and skin. Let’s throw in burned hair as well because some tire bits probably landed on my head. Luckily I don’t have peladophobia (fear of bald people) or trichopathophobia (fear of hair) so that part is not as bad.

The phobia specialist might say that my anxiety was caused by amychophobia (fear of scratches), atomosophobia (fear of explosions), and pyrophobia (fear of fire) and these caused my reaction to the bad parallel parking attempt. This allows him to smile as he ticks off three boxes on his phobia fact-list. Quite possibly, a prescription drug exists that will help with one or more of these phobias, although they may have side effects that cause me to want to flirt with other manifestations of potential energy, such as gambling. I might win. I might.

But isn’t everyone afraid of explosions? I hope so. A healthy fear of explosions is perfectly natural, and I bet those carrying the “explosions don’t bother me” genetic material die off over generations. I think my reaction could be much more easily explained as a keen awareness of potential energy. The contemplation of the might that happens in nanoseconds as the human instinct for self-preservation takes over.

Why do we fear potential energy? For the same reason we fear explosions. Might might kill us, regardless of the might of our minds or bodies. That is why the word might also means power or strength. If the sword is mighty it is because it has a lot that it could do, a lot of maybe, a lot of potential energy. In Spanish the infinitive of the verb might is the same as the noun for the word power[1]. You can’t have power without might: power comes from what might become of it. There is no such thing as power that might not do anything.

Without potential energy phobia, humans would never have survived over the eons. Every one of the six-hundred-odd phobias on the official list are caused because humans don’t want bad stuff to happen to them. Evolution is a pitiless blade that never stops cutting; it plays no favorites and does not take requests. People who aren’t afraid die. Lack of fear is a mutation that evolution will cut out over and over again. The mind can never master the genes.

Not making the list of phobias: fear of energy, or fear of evolution. Humans fear consequences a lot more than causes.

---

[1] For those who would quibble with me here on the grounds that poder translates more suitably to could than might, I beg your pardon. Surely most would agree that could could mean might, at least in some instances. It is interesting that in English, might enjoys a measure of strength that could does not. If a person could do something, well that’s just fine. But if they might do it, now that’s altogether different. Not only could could mean might, it might mean might, and sometimes does.

What the Hell Just Happened?

As the smoke is clearing, the fog is settling in. Chief Justice John Roberts’ tricky opinion in the AFA case has both dems and republicans scrambling to figure out what they actually believe.

“UPHELD!”

“Yes but as a tax”

“uhh, FUCK, but, uh, WHATEVER!”

Is the Supreme Court ruling a double edged sword, as many are saying? A trap, a Trojan horse, we need more metaphors. Constitutional scholars are uniformly of the mind that by upholding the Individual Mandate as a tax, Roberts and the High Court have changed the meaning of the commerce clause in a way that could have far reaching effects on current and future legislation. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Federal Government has much more limited power to fund certain initiatives on a state level while also compelling the states to act in certain ways as a result. The interpretation of the Commerce clause is seen as a classic example of big versus small government, played out in the legislative arena. By upholding the AFA Mandate as a tax and rejecting it under Commerce, all hell may have broken loose.  

Is Roberts clever and cunning enough to uphold AFA in such a way as to actually help the Conservative judicial cause? Of course he is, he’s fucking brilliant. And it sounds conspiracy-ish, but like any conspiracy theory it is at least somewhat plausible. The Dems reaction, undoubtedly, will be to come up with bullshit ways to try and avoid the “NEW TAX” label sticking. They’ll talk about “broad bipartisan support” and of course point out that Roberts, a Bush appointee, cast the deciding vote. If this was a brilliant strike by the Chief Justice, it even fooled conservative TV heroes like Glen Beck, who was busy distributing t-shirts with Roberts’ image and the word “COWARD” loudly stamped atop. It might be time for Dems to make a bold, creative pivot to prevent November from turning into a tax referendum. It could fail miserably, but then again we’re just a magazine, we can suggest whatever we dang well please.

Everyone was surprised by this ruling and its far-reaching implications, both explicit and implicit. Explicit was, of course, the AFA completely upheld, which few believed would happen. Certainly not with Roberts casting the deciding vote. Implicit is the notion that democrats are quite literally afraid of the word ‘tax’. And I mean literally, literally, not figuratively, as in the frequent use of the word to suggest heightened importance: my heart was literally in my throat. No, it was figuratively in your throat, which is why you picked a common metaphor in the first place, without realizing it of course, and you inserted the word literally because you thought it functioned like the Mrs. Dash of shit you want people to pay attention to. Literally, like the Mrs. Dash.

But dems are afraid of the word ‘tax’. So are Republicans, for that matter. ‘Tax’ is the most loaded word in the (American) English language. Our adolescent Nation was formed because people were significantly pissed off about taxation to shoot and kill others. Literally. That’s simplistic as hell, but in America ‘tax’ is a serious, ancient, and deadly word. The Obama Administration did a very poor job of arguing for the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate under the commerce clause, as has been widely reported. The problem was not that the Administration does not have good lawyers, the problem was that it was a flawed argument from the get go. Both Obama and Mitt Romney, when he was Governor of Massachusetts, defended the individual mandate as not being any sort of a tax. They both wanted, understandably, to completely avoid using the T-word. Of course the Individual Mandate is a tax, John Roberts says so. The Administration needs to accept this and now work to undo the 300 year-old baggage that the T-word carries. They need to reeducate the goddamn slavering idiot public. It’s probably impossible, but then again not one human being on the planet, save the man himself, predicted John Roberts would be the lone reason the Affordable Care Act was upheld.

Taxes are not inherently bad. I feel somewhat crappy issuing an 8^th-grade Civics lesson, but taxes are necessary and useful. They are often poorly administrated and misused, but the kind of blatant citizen abuse that led to the Thirteen Colonies revolt way back in the day is another story entirely. America was set up when we had just endured long-term tax rape. There are some bad taxes yet today, no fucking doubt. But the idea that requiring citizens to have health coverage, well that IS a tax, and it is a goddamn necessary one. You want true freedom, move to the middle of nowhere. Oh wait, nobody lives in the middle of nowhere because the services that government provides through taxation are necessary for all of us. The outskirts of nowhere, perhaps, but not the middle. Literally.

Many countries have higher rates of taxation than the United States. Many countries provide universal health care in completely government run systems and charge a substantial tax for doing so. This is what taxation is for: to collect money that is used to serve the population. When you gas up your car, you are paying taxes that include legislation from the 1960s that was put in place to revamp the highway system. It was never repealed and is considered untouchable by both democrats and republicans. Without that money shit would go sideways real quick. Figuratively. But nobody clamors about that tax because we don’t remember how it came to be in the first place. We bitch about gas prices, but the gas people have managed to strategically avoid the T-word. It’s all about the T-word.

The  #2 loaded word in all of this: socialism. You know, commies shooting at Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn. People, get over it. If you are one of those folk who flip out when you hear the word “socialism” you need to get a grip. The dictionary defines socialism thusly: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Regardless of the AFA, the above definition simply does not describe the U.S. economy. However nor do we have pure capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Notice there are elements here that folks also balk at, particularly anything relating to “corporate ownership”. Plenty of Tea-Party folks hate corporate anything with a passion. Yet anyone who uses the word “socialism” is viewed as if they just brought a Ouija board to the Salem town square in 1692. In 2012 we do not have socialism, regardless of the AFA, and we certainly do not have pure capitalism.

Instead of resisting the definition of the Mandate as a tax and coming up with finely-tuned, crafty arguments, the dems ought to say “FUCK IT. The Mandate is a tax, yo. It’s a tax we need, the Supreme Court upheld it, and we intend to deliver fantastic services with this tax and cover 50 million uninsured”. If they accept the premise of necessary taxation, put forth a massive effort to decriminalize the T-word, the soldiers in Robert’s Trojan Horse might just hop out and mingle with the natives.

Here's to Your Health, Asshole!

Wow. The Affordable Care Act (AFA) stands. Upheld in a surprise 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts swinging leftward (or was he?) and casting in effect the deciding vote. That the AFA was upheld was widely misreported by major news organizations which tried to make sense of the decision by essentially reading on air the majority opinion as it was released at 10a.m. Eastern time on June 28, 2012. Both Fox and CNN plastered “INDIVIDUAL MANDATE STRUCK DOWN” across their screens since the language of the opinion misled them.

Suckering CNN and FOX was the early part of the opinion which stated that the Individual Mandate was not constitutional under the Commerce clause, as U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had argued before the court. Verrilli was far from convincing, a major reason that pundits everywhere felt sure the entire statute would be struck down. However, during oral arguments in May, few even noticed, let alone understood, Chief Justice Robert’s questions about the applicability of the tax code to the Individual Mandate. J-Ro, as liberals now call him, is hard to read; his calm, even demeanor never changing. His big, wet blue eyes and easy boy-scout smile make him look so lovely and powerful. He seems like the kind of guy who would care about your pleasure and hold you afterwards. Maybe even stay all night and make pancakes in the morning while wearing your bathrobe. Ok, enough of my own personal J-Ro fantasy. At least for now.

During oral arguments, Verrilli looked and sounded a mess. He didn’t get good reviews from anyone on his performance. The Individual Mandate is NOT constitutional under the commerce clause. But apparently it IS constitutional when viewed as a tax. A plain old tax. Holy shit. That really complicates things.

The Government had argued that the Mandate was most certainly NOT a tax, mainly because the word ‘tax’ is used by both sides as a weapon. See our recent post McNuggett Season for a more complete rant on that topic. Had the Court upheld the Mandate under commerce, that would in effect give Congress the power to make you buy furniture at IKEA, to use an example provided by fucking insane super creepy former presidential candidate Michele Bachman, who took time out of her busy summer schedule of shooting gays, to make a comment. What the Court actually ruled is that no, Congress does not have that power. But they do have the power to levy taxes. And the Individual Mandate, in that sense, is legal.

The incredibly strange bedfellows this has created will hopefully place John Roberts head on my pillow. Stay lubed. But what is utterly stunning in the Court’s opinion is that the Chief Justice essentially said to the Government “The Mandate as you argued it is unconstitutional. However it’s ok as a tax, which is not what you even argued.” It is beyond rare for the Court to supply arguments not posited by the Government to uphold a law.

WTF HAPPENS NOW?

This is a victory for Obama, to be sure. Oh, wait, it’s all about the people, not the politics. Yet even with the surprise upholding of the AFA, Republicans are now in a fervor to make the November election a referendum on the AFA. Taxes versus Freedom. State’s Rights versus Federalism. It’s 1770 all over again.

Romney has pledged to repeal the AFA on day one if elected. Never mind that repealing a law is not as easy as a few pen strokes. Billions of dollars that will be spent on implementation between now and January would be wasted. And although Romney’s battle cry is “repeal and replace” he has not uttered a word about what form the replacement would take. Further weirding everyone out, the AFA is damn similar to Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. But Romney and Obama are both on video tape saying they think the mandate is a good idea and is definitely not a tax. Those dudes need to find a room. Romney supported the plan in Massachusetts but opposes it so vociferously at the Federal level he is willing to base his entire campaign on it. His people talk about it being an “issue of Federalism and States’ Rights”. Bitch, please. Think whatever you want about Romney, but the fact is that guy opposes the AFA because it’s Obama’s plan. Romney is a democrat-opposer, not a man with ideas or purpose.

Chief Justice J-Ro, and you should see this guy in regular clothes, yo, the robes are so fucking modest! Oh, wait, I was having a point to make … what was it. Oh yes. By letting the AFA stand but forcing the Mandate to be levied as a tax, Roberts has provided an interesting opportunity for the right. They can now come out with stats about how this is the biggest tax hike on the middle class, ever, and all of that. It doesn’t take much to confuse the slavering idiot public. If something can be construed as a tax, it’s evil, and it does not matter what it is for or what it will help to accomplish. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has already pledged a vote to repeal the AFA in July. Never mind they have already done this once, and the Senate will not pass such a measure, so it is entirely symbolic in that sense. It is quite literal in the sense that taxpayer time and money will be spent so that the House can have more shit to yell about.

IMPLEMENTATION

The AFA is a giant piece of legislation. For those cheering its approval, some words of caution. Most Americans have bitter complaints about their health coverage already, whatever type it is. The AFA is going to help cover 50 million uninsured. But the implementation of such a behemoth as the AFA will be fraught with problems. There is a penalty starting in 2014 for those who do not obey the Individual Mandate. The right will cherry pick stories of the burden this will place on some. Certainly there will be protests; groups of Tea-Partiers who refuse to sign up, video clips of what people will no doubt brand the “obamacare police”; news stories of little old ladies who don’t have enough spare change to take the bus downtown and sign up.. It will get ugly. And if Obama is reelected and the AFA is fully implemented, well I’m sorry to say it will probably, in large parts, suck. After all, this is giant legislation with complicated compromises, at least a few, already built in. We will still have a weird mix of government programs and private insurers. The bureaucratic nightmare that is sure to ensue will be videotaped and broadcast.

Will the public calm down, move on to other issues like the economy? Of course not. Not one legal scholar predicted the AFA would stand with the Individual Mandate as a tax. It makes the debate almost too simple, but nothing for Americans is ever too simple. We want simple. Simple is easy. It remains to be seen if the right can keep the debate debased at a level of “vote for Obama if you want new taxes”. Can Romney win an election based on one single issue – Romney the repealer? Would anyone really vote for a candidate based solely on the intent to un-do things? Can Romney really keep quiet about what he would actually … you know … DO?  

Only one thing is certain. J-Ro is a hottie.

Premature Adjudication

Buoyed by our ahead-of-the-curve reporting on the Karen Klein bus monitor story,  we are taking the far more ambitious, and undoubtedly foolish step of predicting the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, due to be announced this coming week. If we’re right, well, that’s super cool, right? And if not, we will wear around those “I believe in stuff” tee-shirts for an entire day. Hilarious! Ya’ll can point and laugh.

The ruling in the Affordable Care Act case could go three different ways. It could be completely struck down as unconstitutional, it could be entirely upheld, or the justices could decide to rule that certain parts stay and others go. Lawmakers, and no doubt a good number of journalists, have been preparing in advance so that when the ruling is issued they can have immediate responses. U.S. Senatorial candidate and current Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock was lambasted this past week for having filmed three different responses in advance of the decision so that he could make the appropriate one instantly available after the court issues its ruling. This has generated a bit of outrage – but really – why? Nothing strictly speaking wrong with filming in advance. It comes off a bit disingenuous, but so what? That the footage was somehow posted on the candidates’ website before being hastily removed just makes for a bit of fun.

Point is, this is the most anticipated Supreme Court ruling probably ever. Will big-government Obamacare be upheld – after all, it was passed by two elected bodies of government and signed into law by the President – or will the conservative-leaning court strike down bloated legislation that is clearly unconstitutional? These are the battle lines, this is the red v blue narrative playing out in the most high-stakes court case in U.S. History.

So, first the easy part. The whole damn thing will be struck down. Every last shred. Republicans will drink champagne and talk about how this was a victory for America. Dems will put on a brave face even as the ruling will send them spinning into disarray and trying to pick up the pieces so that they will not appear weakened come November. But there is no doubt this will change the landscape and the debate heading for the presidential election.

Now, the hard part. What about the people? You, know, the, umm, citizens? The Affordable Care Act has become such a political football that, particularly to those who oppose it, the actual effect of the ruling on flesh-and-blood people is beyond forgotten. It was never important in the first place. As soon as Obama started the wheels turning on Universal coverage, a loud, red, NO FUCKING WAY became the order of the day for republicans. The AFA would require all citizens to purchase coverage, an intrusion into personal life that is anathema to Republicans. Especially when that intrusion takes the form of people being forced to pay for stuff. They will intrude mightily into your life in other ways, but that’s another several thousand words. But anything that looks like a “tax”, no fucking way, dude. It does not matter what the actual issue is, it only matters if something seems like new taxes. And to be fair, they do have a hell of a good point. Even the U.S. Solicitor General himself was at a loss to explain to the Justices during oral arguments how it could be constitutional to force citizens to buy health insurance. Donald Verrili’s job was to artfully make the Administration’s case, but he faltered. Turning in an entirely unimpressive performance, he did not really seem to have any good points to make. Lawyers should, you know, have cool points to make.

Here’s a good, solid, sappy point: don’t we, as a people, want universal health care? We do, right? We want the kind of society where everyone has access to decent  care. We don’t want 40 million uninsured Americans. Republicans are not proposing an alternative. They are fighting tooth-and-nail to defeat AFA as a political victory. You don’t govern by just opposing stuff.

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE; PREEXISTING CONDITIONS

Above sappy point easily crucified by Republicans. They just refer to how unfair it is to force people to buy stuff, and we forget about the 40 million. We think “What? Paying for stuff? Yeah, that sort-of IS bullshit”. But we have a market-based healthcare system here, a combination of private companies and government programs. Private companies are allowed to turn you down flat for coverage if you have preexisting conditions that they determine will make you too expensive to cover. They are for-profit companies, they are not in the business of insuring the (already) sick. The AFA has two central components which must BOTH be upheld for the law to work. The first is that turning down individuals for care based on preexisting conditions becomes ILLEGAL. Can’t do it no more. Gotta approve everyone who applies. The second is the individual mandate. The AFA is saying “okay everyone, you have to buy coverage, but you cannot be turned down”. AFA completely blows up if you take away the individual mandate. Then, a person could live without coverage, and literally call an insurance provider from the ambulance on their way to the hospital to buy a plan when they should need it. That will never work. Everyone would simply wait until they were sick to buy coverage, and with the preexisting condition exclusion gone, insurance companies would go broke. Or, their premiums would be so high coverage would be impractical (yeah, like it isn’t already). So remember, folks, AFA only works with BOTH the individual mandate and preexisting condition exclusion. Even if our bold prediction is wrong and the court upholds part of the law, but strikes down the individual mandate, the thing still completely blows up.

MMm, MMm, MARKET BASED

Just a quick side-rant on the beauty of market-based systems. Competition drives down prices and makes services better! Yay! But no, not in health care. The best universal coverage systems in the world are all government run. Governments suck at certain things, but they are the perfect choice to administer large-scale programs like national healthcare, and do so as a much smaller percentage of GDP than do market-based systems like ours.  They aren’t flawless, but having thousands of private companies and thousands of laws and regulations, all varying from one state to the next is a recipe for disaster, which is exactly what we now have. Let private enterprise do stuff it’s good at, and let Government do things like administer health care. No, this does not mean you are no longer free, it does not mean we’re becoming “socialist”. More on “socialism” in a future feature (apologetic quotes in this case used very intentionally) but that word, “socialism”, is a loaded word because of our associations with the good ole’ U.S.S.R. “Socialism” means bad stuff, right? Like really bad. No, it just means that sometimes, elected government should do stuff that private enterprise is not very well suited to deal with. There is no such thing as pure capitalism, anywhere. If it would have worked, we’d have it here. Private enterprise and market-based systems simply cannot do everything under the sun. We want awesome services and low taxes, and in healthcare that is not going to happen with a market-based system. Universal care won’t be cheap, but freedom ain’t free, and aren’t our values as a culture enough to make us say “hey, let’s do this.” Okay so that is naive and idealistic, which is adorable, I know. Aww, shucks.

POLITICIZATION OF HUMANITY

So here we are, on what might be the eve of the AFA ruling. Yup, the whole thing is toast. Gone. It will be a close vote, it will go along party lines. Oh wait, the Justices are non-partisan. Mmm-hmm. A final cynical reset on this whole business…

1. In 2000, the court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist granted certiorari to Bush v. Gore – remember that one? That means the Supreme Court actually stepped in without having been asked to review the case. Rehnquist knew that the court would rule 5-4 in favor of Bush. Which they did, giving the Presidential Election to him.

2. Bush appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices during his 8 year presidency: John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

3. Wait and see how the vote comes down this week. Who would have thought that Bush v. Gore would determine the outcome of the Affordable Care Act? It already has.

And the … people? The 40 million with no insurance? Well, this is a victory for every single one of them. They will not be forced to pay a new tax in the form of the individual mandate. A victory for democracy. 

Abuse me! I'm Broke!

You may have seen news stories the past 48 hours or so about Karen Klein,  a 68-year old bus monitor in upstate NY who was verbally tormented by middle school students while … I guess … while monitoring. This kids were really vile. They said the usual stuff about her being fat and ugly, and nothing personal, but that part was true. Then they got into some really cruel stuff about Karen’s family all committing suicide to avoid being around her. The little shits did not know Karen’s son had committed suicide ten years ago. Of course, another student video-taped the whole thing on his cell phone, and on to YouTube it went.

Every major news outlet is covering this story, from NYT to People. Everyone knows bullying happens all the time, and it's in the news a lot lately. To hear young kids saying the kinds of things they did to a 68 year old grandmother is shocking and will make you feel icky. We know kids bully other kids, but to see their behavior towards a grown-up, well, it felt like witnessing for ourselves a brand new low for America. 

In the news coverage, each story makes prominent reference, without a whole lot of explanation, to something Beliefless just can’t quite understand. Apparently “over $450,000 has been raised”. Well, ok. Raised for what? Karen did an interview with Anderson Cooper yesterday in which Anderson, with his large, wet blue eyes noticeably moistening beyond their usual moistitude, announced that DisneyLand and SouthWest airlines had teamed up to offer her a 4 day vacation with all the bells and whistles for her and 9 other people. Disneyland is horrid, so no need to even address that part. But what about all this money? What’s it for?

Now, these kids, these stupid little shits, they were cruel beyond all measure. And some of us here at BLFLS endured our share of torment on the bus. I myself carried an instrument most days, and if you want to really understand verbal abuse, get on a school bus with a tuba. I was also a bag lunch kid, placing me in the lower echelon of riders. The cool kids bought hot lunch, so ambling toward the back with my brown bag that said “my name” with a big heart and smiley face courtesy of mom did not help my social standing. Rarely when the task fell to dad to make lunch, he relished drawing an entire stick-figure battle of army men on the bag, totally not cool. Dad’s real joy came from what I can now understand was actually hilarious: placing a small bag of milk-bones in with my baloney and ketchup sandwich, pear, Capri sun and pretzels. Somehow he got me with that gag every single time, but unpacking the contents of one’s lunch is kind of a big deal in middle school, and the ridicule that followed the milk bones spilling out everywhere is etched on my memory. I’m not bitter though. I want children for the sole reason of passing on this tradition. My kids won't commit elder abuse though. I'll monitor the shit out of them. 

Point is, BLFLS folk have heard an insult or two in our day. We were the ones taking it, not dishing it out. Which leads to the key questions: What the fuck is a bus monitor, what is his/her job, wouldn’t his/her job include enforcing some type of authority in a situation like this so why should he/she be the victim, and most importantly: where the fuck is my money? Now, you’re wondering, I’m sure, how our editor-in-chief Saxon Garrison Grayling allowed two colons in the same sentence. It’s progressive, yo, we use language progressively. We’re not that hard to follow. Go read some Gertrude Stein.

But, which is a terrible word with which to start a paragraph, back to all that money, and Karen’s job, whatever it may have been. What makes Americans see this kind of stuff and immediately think they need to give someone money? Are we that well-trained by tragedy-oriented infomercials? “Oh, that poor dear. Honey, where’s my credit card?” Why exactly does Karen Klein get $450,000? I mean, great, go Karen. Pay off your mortgage, buy a couple of cars, put some money in the bank. Sappy Americans don’t want to admit this, but every fucking last one of us would suffer that abuse for a half million dollars. Even if we also had to go to Disneyland. Christ, people on reality TV will eat cow eyeballs for a chance to win like 50 grand.    People gave money to make the ickyness go away, plain and simple. That is why the news coverage mentions the money, and just leaves it at that. Americans think we can buy our way out of anything. Instead of giving Karen money, what about volunteering at your local [anywhere will do]. Ok, so this is all a bit preachy by now.  What happened to Karen totally blows, it’s totally not cool. Well, until the part where she received a half million dollars. That part was just fine and dandy.

One could look at this as all very encouraging. A sweet old lady was bullied, and being anti-bullying is very in these days. People’s hearts went out to her, they gave generously because it just felt right. There became a heartwarming aspect to a story that was, at first, only sickening and sad. Karen is not pursuing criminal charges and the kids have been identified and, apparently, scolded. So is this all a big happy ending? I mean, not the massage parlor kind, the storybook kind. Or did people give money just to make themselves feel better for a second? To give themselves permission to stop thinking about it. Does it make it ok that little kids abused an old lady if America then raises money and gives it to the victim? Does that really change anything? Is the Karen story something that we should all reflect on and talk about, or is it just a newsy tidbit? Who likes waffles? 

One thing’s for sure: a lot of Americans, nice, mean or any other kind, would trade places with Karen any old time.