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. 

The Battle of the Uber-Banks

The staff here at Beliefless World HQ has been embroiled in an uncharacteristically heated debate. Normally, this group goes out of its way to, you know, not believe in stuff. Other than the occasional spat about who left the cereal bar a mess, or jammed up the coin slot on our original table-top version of Ms Pac Man, it’s pretty mellow around here. Of course, our indifference is feigned. How could our team organize a blog about that which, or in which,  they do not believe? How can non-belief be a belief system? Well, it can’t you see, and we are hypocrites. But, we have glasses with large frames, and we don’t shave very often, so we pull it off. Some might call us hipsters, but that would be almost too generous. We’re more like lazy geeks. Actual hipsters spend a lot of money on those tight 40 year old jeans.  

One of our lead writers, Kennon, suggested a follow-up column about large corporate banks to the June 14 Bank of America post. Beliefless, repeating itself? We argued about this for hours sitting under our airplane-propeller ceiling fan on our overstuffed couch with taco bell wrappers in the cushions. The already problematic illusion of belieflessness would certainly be shattered once and for all if we do a repeat column. If writing about stuff makes one’s belieflessness dubious, then writing about the same topic twice completely destroys the illusion. However, according to fancy site-traffic statistics, the June 14 post entitled “Bank of America is a Bag of Ass” has received zero page views. The readership may well embody the essence of belieflessness better than our crack staff. But our site-traffic guru, Sebestian, says that if a person opened up the blog and just read straight down, they could read any or all of the posts even though only the most recent post would get a hit. Two of our other writers, Piper and Atticus, both agreed, and their glasses are pretty  huge. So it is at least possible that some of our readers may have had a glanced at the Bag of Ass post.

So on to the actual content, then.

Is there really any difference between large uber banks? Is there a point to switching from Bank of America to Chase or Wells Fargo, or vice versa? Is there any satisfaction to closing an account and taking your money elsewhere? Hmm. Maybe. Probably not though.

So as you all read, maybe, my experience with BoA was just awful. You always expect to get screwed by large companies, and it always makes you feel like helpless crap, and it basically sucks, but you try not to think about it and just have your day, whatever that brings. But when the incompetence and hypocrisy reach a certain point, you just have to put on your stinkiest bowling shirt and go take your money back. Which I did. And it did feel good. What made me feel kind of bad, though, was that the person helping me was nice. And she was competent. And I wanted to fuck her. But more to the point, a lot of these large uber-companies are happy to let their employees take the heat for the organizational largess and systemic shitiness caused by the fact that they do not invest in doing what they say they will. Bank of America has many slick commercials narrated by Keifer Sutherland but they absolutely do not follow through on any of those promises. Marketing is supposed to be about taking a company’s values and practices and using them to promote the company. Nowadays, companies skip the values and practices and go straight to invented marketing. That’s where your PR firm makes up values that sound good, hires actors that are mildly white, asian and black to advertise in different markets, and just unleashes a torrent of ads designed to create a ‘brand”. I’m so tired of the word “brand” these days. Another column about that sometime soon, I know, you can’t fucking wait! But the point is BoA paid Sutherland untold millions and bought untold billions of TV ads to foist upon the slavering idiot public an image of something that just plain does not exist. Having used BoA branches all over the country, I can say from my own experience that their employees are the least trained and their systems are the least technologically advanced of any major bank. Various consumer data will also tell you the same thing. I find it especially objectionable that the corporate strategy is to hire good folk but not train them, and without proper investment in the infrastructure necessary for them to be able to do their jobs. None of the bullshit I endured was the fault of Lorena at my local BoA branch, but then who should I yell at? Or, more correctly, at whom shall I yell? Well nobody, of course, yelling is mean. The problem is that the ground-level people have to bear the brunt of what the uber-corporation is too fucking cheap to address. Why not just have an awesome, fair company that makes a tidy profit and has happy employees? I know, I know, it’s called a credit union.  

So after a long discussion and complicated paperwork, I got a cashier’s check with all of the money that I own. I didn’t really know what I hoped to accomplish by taking my whole financial existence to another bank. I felt the strong pull of a credit union, because it just sounds so … fair and just. But I really need a bank that has branches everywhere and online banking and stuff, so unless I was willing to forgo that convenience, I was limited to an uber bank. I looked up reviews on my phone, and they were all terrible. CHASE, BoA, Wells Fargo, all have terrible reviews. And they were all more or less interchangeable. This guy got screwed in this way, that girl got screwed in this other way, it’s all the same. It’s a really powerless feeling to know that all choices are bad choices. So I thought I would just visit several different banks and give them a quick audition.

I walked into a Rabobank branch because they sponsor a cycling team, and who doesn’t like doped up 150-lb dudes in skin-tight outfits dueling it out in the French Alps? Those guys fuck each other. A lot. Just saying. But Rabobank felt quite … European so I thought I would go in and get some pamphletry. They were nice, but they only have branches in California, and they don’t even have ATMs anywhere else, and you can’t make deposits with the taking-a-picture-of-the-check thing, which is useful to me. So I ruled out Rabobank and kept driving around.

Next I came to Wells Fargo, and my friends’ wife works for them, and I also want to fuck her, so I figured I’d check it out. They live in Phoenix, so no chance of running into her, but I had a vaguely positive vibe with Wells-Fargo so I decided to check them out. I drove by one branch and it gave me the heebie-jeebies. It was in a sketchy strip mall and had an armed guard outside. Also the building looked like a fast-food restaurant. Most banks are just in random buildings, but WF seems like they have a cookie-cutter fake-old-fashioned building design that they use for most of their branches. It felt like a bad, tiny theme park. So I blew it off and kept driving.

There was another WF branch near the mall that looked a lot nicer, and it was not one of their pre-fabricated buildings. So I went inside. And this is when I started to realize that huge banks, or any huge companies, want their “brand” to be evident from the get-go. In the WF, this took the form of a greeter. Like at Wal-Mart, only super fucking hot. Definitely wanted to fuck her. Which is why she was there. Well not to fuck me, but for me to want to fuck her. Guys are pretty simple. So this girl, Leticia, well her eyes widened when I said I might be opening a new account. They must get extra vacation or a bonus or some shit for opening new accounts. So she directed me to a personal banker and I got the pamphlets from WF.  Turns out, not unlike BoA, they have weird complicated rules that you have to transfer a certain amount from checking to savings each month to avoid fees. The whole point of which is so that they can charge you fees. I don’t like setups like that, so I bailed. On to CHASE.

The walk-in with CHASE is pretty different from WF or BoA. The personal bankers’ desks are right there when you walk in, and they are obviously coached to aggressively greet you. I never had so many people interested in my having a great day. So I got in line and eventually was directed to a personal banker. Oh, and one thing just randomly that I don’t like. I don’t like that when you go up to a teller at BoA or CHASE the first thing you have to do is swipe your ATM card and enter your PIN. The tellers, the actual people, are not automated. Not yet. The ATM card, as the acronym indicates, is for the automated machine. Not for the bank teller. When I walk up, I want to present my identification and then do my banking. Not swipe my card. Just saying.

So my personal banker was Andrew, and although I did not want to fuck him, he did cut a fine figure of a nice young man. Probably about 25, winning smile, tall, thin and tan. I was wearing a Paris-Roubaix tee-shirt, and he knew that was a bike race. Points for Andrew. Right away it turned out CHASE has some legitimately better deals for military veterans. No fees, better services, and so forth. Side by side, most account offerings at uber banks are ultimately about the same. They are packaged and marketed differently, but they’re pretty much the same. In this case I was able to get some better stuff due to my veteran status. Yes, I know that admitting I’m a veteran adds another layer to the Beliefless dilemma.

It takes a while to set up a new account. The banker has to talk to you and ask you stuff. Although I was disappointed that the super hot asian chick at the next desk did not get assigned to me, Andrew was pretty solid. He obviously had a strong sales background, but he wasn’t pushy. He knew all of the CHASE policies, offerings, services cold. As conversation is inevitable during account setup, it turned out we had some mutual acquaintances around town. I came right out and told him I don’t much care for giant banks, and he was sympathetic. He pretty much said yep, I hear you, CHASE isn’t perfect but the military account is a lot better than what other places offer.

The real problem now is that, for the moment, I feel pretty dang good about my choice. Andrew called this morning to let me know about a couple of follow-ups I had asked about, and I don’t like talking to bankers, but this was a good level of personal service. But not in a sexual way.

We’ll see how it plays out. This ain’t no kind of endorsement for CHASE, of course. I’m sure they’re ultimately horrible.  

McNuggett Season

 So the Republicans have finished their conclave and Mitt Romney has emerged the presumptive presidential nominee. Now it’s time to get on with it. The race for the White House is officially underway; Mitt and Barack recently squaring off with dueling speeches in battleground Ohio. It’s now mid June, 2012, just about 5 months before the general election. What happens now is anybody’s guess. In the world of the 24-hr news cycle, the Republican primaries brought us more sound bytes than ever before. 

The cameras roll from minute one, and candidates don’t tend to be totally ready or vetted for that kind of scrutiny from the get-go. Gaffes, contradictions, intra-campaign squabbles, inter-campaign squabbles the likes of which would have made Reagan chide all involved for violating his “11^th commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”. Little know fact: the actual author of the 11^th Commandment was California State Republican Party chairman Gaylord B. Parkinson. Gaylord. Parkinson. Well no wonder it’s now commonly attributed to R.R., the man whose stock continues to rise as the years pass, especially since dying. Republicans, and at times Democrats and Libertarians are all out to compare themselves to Reagan. Reagan said this, Reagan always did that, don't you think Reagan would do such-and-so. He's practically a Christ-like figure to some. And hey, there's another guy who is looking GOOD to a lot of folks with the benefit of time. Imagine Reagan in the year 4,000, that dude will have temples. 

But this was not an “excuse ME, Senator, I beg your pardon” kind of Primary season. It was a “this guy fucked everyone but his wives” and “That guy’s grandpa had 11 wives” kind of Primary season. The Republicans are a little bloodier than usual, but also a bit more battle-tested. When Barack won the W.H. in ’08, he talked until he was blue in the face (this is not racial, yo) about “restoring civility to Washington”. So he kept a bit too quiet early on, and Republicans were happy to let the Tea Party paint Hitler moustaches on Obama caricatures while saying they thought it was deplorable. 

And now here we are, the final battle just ahead. The lines are drawn, the troops deployed. Guns pointed. And the ammunition: data. Well sort of.

Recent jobs report looks GOOD Obama is a lock!

More recent durable goods report lackluster, Mitt is looking better!

Spain bailout deal reached, stocks soar!

Spain bailout seen as too flimsy, stocks slide.

Republicans and Democrats hurl data at each other that they deem favorable to themselves and unfavorable to the other. The good part is that “data” in this case means something like “what we want the truth to be” or “whatever assholes will believe”.  Their data bears as much resemblance to reality as Chicken McNuggets bear to chicken. And Americans eat a shit ton of McNuggets. Prefer them in fact. The formed data-bits hurled by right and left don’t mean much – but in the end will be sufficient to win an election for President of the United States.

Celebrity Chef Jamie Oliver recently visited the most obese county in the U.S. in an attempt to make a lot of money. His attempt was, no doubt, successful. According to the reality show that filmed his several-month stay, the purpose of the visit was also to attempt to change the eating lifestyle of the natives. This took place in rural West Virginia, certainly the only place in America that could accept culinary advice from the British. His poor dentistry no doubt put him at ease with the locals. He re-vamped school lunches - even cooking them himself in huge quantities, traveled around cooking healthy shit for people, and had close-up filmed, tear-streaked conversations with mothers who went through 3 2-litre bottles of Mountain Dew everyday and whose kids helped themselves to  the same. Celebrity chefs are, in the main, huge douche bags. It so happens that Anthony Bourdain is not subject to this generalization as he is a self-described cook, rather than a chef. Big difference. 

However, Oliver conducted a revealing experiment vis-à-vis chicken nuggets. He rounded up a group of school age kids who eat McNuggets all the time in school lunches. On the counter in front of him he had one beautifully cooked roasting chicken on a cutting board. He also had a food processor, a large bowl of raw chicken parts, and different beakers of additives and so forth. You can see where this is going. He then showed the kids how McNuggets were made. He piled all of the slop into the food processor and set it going It was loud as shit and the thing shook trying to grind up the pretty substantial bones. He added the goop from the beakers, one glop at a time and came out with a pink paste. He balled it up and rolled it in some bread crumbs and threw it on a griddle. Having conducted this same experiment all over the world (motherfucker is a ‘celebrity’, after all) he triumphantly asked the kids who wanted the real chicken and who wanted the brand new nugget. Contradicting the results of every other occasion this graphic demonstration was performed, every single kid picked the nugget. Little fuckers SAW how it was made, and picked it anyway.

Welcome to the American Electorate. Or as politicians call it “The American People”. I wish I had a font to write those three words in a declaration-of-independence type script. That is how sanctimoniously politicians use them.  “The American People … will not stand for [whatever the fuck comes next]” Or a real favorite of mine, flattery will get you everywhere: “I don’t think The American People are dumb enough to accept that [whatever the fuck you wanna say]”. That’s right! Thank you! We ARE smart! Pass the fucking nuggets. Real chicken is so … complicated. McNuggets are so … easy. And, there’s sauce!

Momentum is gained and lost each time some news item comes out that can be more easily formed into ammo for one side or the other. Often the very same data is used by both sides, each touting the advantage in the recent [jobs report, consumer confidence index, new unemployment claims] data.

Even a lack of saying anything at all is data, like the anti-matter version of data. Obama comes out with some new positions on Immigration. Mitt is caught off-guard so his people say “Governor Romney has not fully formed his opinion on that issue”. Translation “The McNuggets are still in the fryer, hold on. Would you like some extra honey-mustard sauce?” Oh boy, would I! Free sauce! Corporations love me today!

Generally, big hunks of data arrive on the frozen truck around the first of the month. This is when new job creation data comes out, when new jobless numbers come out, and other reports tend to be quarterly such as durable goods, consumer confidence and some others. This is when the McNugget war is at its peak. New jobs up, Obama on the attack. Unemployment claims up, and where was that motherfucker born again?

Look, these people work for us. Yup. It sounds complicated, like real chicken, and it is. But our preference for McNuggets is just a recent development. We mistook easy for … well for nothing. We just wanted easy, so we took it. Politicians easily read us, they feed us salt and fat in a sugary sauce and we say yum. When we attack other countries and start various military bru-ha-has, people often say “Freedom ain’t Free, baby!” Which is true. But is also one hell of a good battle-cry for getting your ass in the voting booth. Reading a goddamned newspaper. Figuring out that CNN, at the end of the day, is just trying to sell commercials. They aren’t there for The American People. That’s what the Government is supposed to be for. If you are an idiot consumer, like nearly all of us, you are going to get screwed every single time. There are millions of Americans who will spend many hours on the internet educating themselves about a car or computer purchase who will not read one single word about politics that is meaningful or useful in any way. They will have a sense of accomplishment when they combine a manufacturers’ coupon with an in-store sale and get a sweet deal on a new laptop. And then they will head straight to McDonalds. 

Bank of America is a Bag of Ass

Today is a good day for the consumer. Or, it would be if this blog had a readership.  But that’s ok. I’m way ahead of my time, which is what one tells oneself when one wants to delude oneself with reassurances of relevance. By assuring myself with the promise of posthumous recognition and plaudits, I blithely ignore that I myself do not even believe in anything at all, right down to the title of this blog, so why would posthumous recognition even matter? Well it wouldn’t, I won’t get any. Whoops, I started out talking about oneself, and I’m already on to “myself” and “I”. Terrible writing. Way ahead of its time, one might realize.

But none of this changes that Bank of America is a huge bag of ass. Huge. I generally avoid singling out people or companies in this blog and try to stay a bit broader, but I know my reader will appreciate this. Because I am that reader. So this is basically a journal? Just wait till you die, Matt, people are going to celebrate you.

Ahem. Anyway, Fraud Protection. Yes, fraud protection. Or put another way, the bank covering its ass.

Bag of Ass is the worst offender, but fraud protection is just another example of the American Public being so infernally stupid that we will actually allow a large company to advertise as an awesome benefit that which totally screws us. Fraud protection.

You know, imagine any one of dozens of similar commercials. A middle-aged soccer-mom on a business trip, oh my goodniss, she left her wallet at the chain restaurant near exit 14! Holy fucking SHIT! Now what? Surely an unsavory character immediately used her credit card to buy a plane ticket to Paraguay and a 13 yr old Vietnamese prostitute. He furthermore went straight into the bank and drained all accounts. What will she do? How will she give that big presentation to the people in the tall building??

But here is Bank of America to save the day! Soccer mom, in a tight close-up revealing the fine tailoring of her pants suit, explains that her best good buddy, Bank of America, detected unusual activity, and now she won’t be charged one cent! That is so high-tech of BoA, to figure all of that out and shut down the account. And so noble, too, that she was not charged.

IT IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT A CONSUMER CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR CHARGES IN THIS INSTANCE.

I have reverted to the crude tactic of capitalization for added emphasis, as one can plainly see above. If it seems overwrought or too obvious, wait 50 years. I’m tellin’ ya.

But this is very important. Banks cannot hold you liable for fraudulent charges. They just can’t. To run commercials advertising how awesome they are for not charging you is brilliant, but only when the audience is the American Public.

Now on to the more important part. Bank of America does not want to have to pay for that Vietnamese girl or the plane trip to Paraguay. Hence, their fraud detection system is heavily slanted toward rejecting charges that are seen as “unusual”. Preemptively declined. Bag of Ass obviously has a super-advanced system to determine patterns in your card use, and will therefore make the smart decision to turn down unusual charges preemptively.

No, they have no such system. Not even close. What they have instead is a strong desire not to pay for things that have even a remote possibility of being fraudulent.

Like the stove I bought at Lowes. After purchasing a home last year, I was spending about $1,000 a month at the local Lowe’s for a good 3 months. Then one day I needed to buy a $1,500 stove. Nope. Declined. Straight up declined. Card switched off, I gotta call the 800 number and push buttons all day to switch it back on. What a bag of ass. Their fraud protection is designed for one purpose: to save them from unnecessary expenditures that they cannot recover. If you haven’t heard, BofA is broke as shit, and getting broker.  Does their “fraud prevention” program take into account that I had purchased dozens of items from that exact Lowe’s store, including the day before? Does it have an algorithm that tells it “ok this guy bought a dishwasher, hot water heater, and a bunch of pots and pans. A stove makes sense”. No. It comes through declined, card shut off, game over. No stove, not today.

Or how about a vacation! Yay! Well don’t try using your ATM card in Las Vegas. Declined. Card shut off. No access to money. Call the 800 number and push buttons all day. You know, vacation. Bag of Ass told me in the future I should notify them I’m going on vacation. Got it. Hold the mail, get the neighbor kid to water the plants, call BoA. Huh? Their system did not take into account that I had purchased a plane ticket on the same card, and made a purchase in the airport. Nice job, BoA.

Now my favorite. Surgery. Who doesn’t like a little surgery? This particular procedure had a $1,200 co-pay. So yeah, declined. Sorry, Mr. Highly-Influential-50-Years-From-Now-Blogger, we will not be cutting into your body until you call your bank. Yup. Call the number. Press the buttons. Be advised, they said, next time, call us ahead of time. Got it. Vacation or surgery, call the bank. Never mind that I had numerous co-pay charges at the same hospital the two previous weeks.

So here it is. Fraud Protection is for the BANK, yo, not for you. Any protection it affords the customer is incidental to the bank covering its own broke ass. If they cared about the people whose money they invest, their fraud protection would actually have the ability to analyze recent transactions to determine the likelihood that something was fraudulent. But they have nothing of the kind. They decline first, ask questions never. You have to call them and press buttons. And they will tell you with glee that you are 100% covered for any fraudulent purchases. Thanks, federal law.

Ahead of my time, aw, shucks. Thanks guys. 

Patriotism, Renewed?

Patriotism, renewed?

I don’t eat hot dogs, not usually. But certain holidays seem to drum up the desire for a log of mystery meat nestled in a bread receptacle. Christmas, for instance. But only when it falls on a Monday. The Monday holidays are the hot dog holidays, which is to say Labor Day and Memorial Day. Of course the 4^th of July always ends up feeling like it’s on a Monday merely due to the ubiquity of hot dogs on that day.

Labor Day and Memorial day have always had a kinship since they serve as bookends for the school year, or they used to, sort of. Now schools have various new scheduling regimens which are confusing to anyone over the age of 20. But Memorial Day has always been the unofficial start of summer, and Labor Day the unofficial end. In the state of Michigan, the legislature recently made it illegal for any school district to start classes prior to Labor Day. Bravo to the broke-ass Michiganders for getting one right for a change. For women it used to have something to do with shoe color as well, and for men white dinner jackets replaced black between these two holidays. How times have changed, old sport.  

The other common element Memorial Day and Labor Day shared isn’t true anymore: they were Nothing Holidays. Growing up, we had no idea that these holidays were anything other than a day off. We did not reflect on any meaning they might have. In fact, America as a whole really thought nothing of them. There were no stories on the news about veterans, no talk of the departed at picnics, no general pervasive sentiment of reflection or memorial. In recent years this has really changed. Our nation is observing these holidays as if they have meaning. And they do. Or they should. Right?

We live in confusing times. Because of the shattering complexity we head for the hills. We want everything boiled down to option A or option B. Once we start thinking beyond that we get nervous because we suddenly find our sure footing eroding, and we don’t like how this makes us feel, so we retreat to our two options, hang out with people who favor the same option, hearten ourselves, and hope for the best.

Patriotism is an easy sell today, regardless of which option you favor, unless you start thinking too much. Our soldiers are heroes. Of course they are, every single one of them. Right? (don't think too hard). Our national consciousness did not really favor this opinion after Vietnam, and we shamefully provided almost no support to our returning troops, deriding and disparaging them, offering no attempt to relate, understand, help. It was a lonely time for so many thousands. During that era, Memorial day was a day when the bank was closed, the mail did not run, and Aunt Ginny had a picnic. Photos of fallen family members stayed dusty on the mantle that day.

9/11 put things back into focus in a way that is difficult and painful to acknowledge. To acknowledge it is to admit that we like our A and B. We like easy choices. As a nation most of us don’t vote, although we bitch a lot. But when Our Nation Was Attacked, everything became pure, became clear again even amidst the horror. Our enemy was obvious. Our soldiers became heroes again. Right?

On 9/12 I was driving through Pennsylvania and a fire brigade was out on a fill the boot campaign. I emptied my wallet of a couple 20s and everyone else did too. There was a look between boot-holder and donor that needed no words. Everyone gave. People put American flags on their car antennas. Three weeks later, they were filthy and tattered and actually violated regulations on proper display of the U.S. Flag. It was the thought that counted. Right?

We went off to Afghanistan with anger and bloodlust, and to most, it felt absolutely right. Then we went off Iraq with a huge question mark in our heads. Bush sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to talk about the mushroom cloud because everyone, everyone trusts Colin Powell. Today he says it is burned into his memory as a great regret.

But we all want to build American-Style Democracy, right? As recently as a few years back lots of A and B folks agreed with this in general. We didn’t have to reflect on what we could afford. Nobody used the term “blood and treasure”.

“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.”

That is what John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address. It is seen as the clearest statement of the doctrine of American democracy-building around the world. It is thought of as the reason we play cop and big brother to the world. It is 50 years old. So is it option A or B that favors this doctrine? Unsure footing for us all.

But something is very different now, palpably different than at any time since World War II. We generally support our troops. We find it disgraceful if veterans do not get the care and support they need. We celebrate them as heroes. We look back at Vietnam and feel sadness and shame for our treatment of returning vets.

But where does today’s New Patriotism come from? Are our soldiers all heroes?  No, not at all. Some are mass murderers, rapists, torturers. Yet this cannot be uttered, because it makes the ground start to give way. People favoring a certain option want a small Government. Yet they also tend to endorse a huge, old-fashioned military. We have lost more than double the number of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan than we lost on 9/11. One Million civilians have been killed, but live on in the venom they foment in the hearts of those who survive them. In so many cases, we planted seeds when we dropped bombs. America has never been more reviled. What is our huge military for? Is it there to carry out a 50 year old doctrine? Is it there to provide jobs and pensions to millions? If we had 5,000 spies in Afghanistan on 9/11 Bin Laden would have died on 9/12. If we had 10,000 spies in Iraq Colin Powell would never have made that speech. We invaded with 130,000 old-fashioned land-attack ass-kickers and, regardless of which option you favor, failed miserably. The world is not more secure, America is far weaker in every possible sense, and now we hear “blood and treasure” talked about. As in, we spiplled a lot, spent a lot, and now we're not so sure we want to Police the World. We're broke, we're wounded, we still have our noses in the air. Looks weird to everyone but us.

But on Memorial Day, we seem to put this aside and Remember. This has to be a good thing. A 19 year-old who joined the Army in 2001 and died in 2005 is thought of as a Man Who Did His Job. His photograph does not collect dust and is on the picnic table this Memorial Day, where it should be. Or maybe it is not the photograph, but the man himself who should enjoy that picnic. And again the ground starts to give way under our feet.

“Bush is a war criminal”.

“Obama’s drone strikes are mass murder”.

Unsure footing. Retreating to wave a flag in honor of those who deserve it just feels right, when everything else is so confusing. Especially when the local news needs to sell advertisements to pharmaceutical companies. Patriotic stories; the shallow, vapid sort, are easy fluff.

But patriotism is harder than that. A lot harder. Right?

3D TV

This is meant to be an instructive post. Imagine not that you are reading this but that it as shouted at you, as you sit bound to a chair, by a psychopath.

Ahem.

Why do you want a 3D TV? You saw the commercials, you saw the happy families in clean, large homes, sitting around together enjoying their 3D TV. The commercial made it look not awkward that an American family would all sit around with dark glasses on smiling in wonderment at a television set. 3D TV is just another disgusting goiter of prosperous America. America isn’t prosperous any more, not for shit and we all know it. But a 3D TV is a prosperous-person’s item, obviously. Could anything be more unnecessary? Is it even grammatically or syntactically correct to have degrees of that which is unnecessary? 

Where does the association of 3D and prosperity come from? Well, from the movies, of course. Back in the 20^th century, 3D was as cool as could be. Of course, that was decades before microwaves existed. Cassette tapes were cutting edge. It made sense that a simulated 3D image projected on a 2D screen was high tech and cool. As the years past the films and the technology improved. Now we can see gratuitous 3D moments in IMAX as we go deaf and assault tubs of popcorn.

What is it really that makes a 3D movie ‘better’. Nothing, of course. It is merely a matter of preference. It does not make you feel like your “actually there” because you know full well that you are in a movie theatre watching nine foot tall blue creatures on a far away planet. You can lose yourself just as much in 2D as 3D. When movies switched to high-definition digital projection, of course that was a big improvement. The picture is clearer and more lifelike. Simulating it in 3D is just an extra ohh-and-ahh factor. If you like 3D movies, fine. Titanic is coming out in 3D. I might pay fifteen bucks to see twenty-something Kate Winslett’s tits in 3D. Or maybe I’ll just stay home and J-off. Which reminds me to add that it is awkward and uncomfortable to try and make out during a 3D movie. 

So movies, I sort of get it. But TV? Why would you want 3D TV? What is it exactly that your high def 2D TV is lacking? Do you really want to have to sit directly in front of the screen with funny glasses on and have only limited 3D content to watch? What is wrong with you? The worst thing about 3D fans is they constantly have to point it out to you. DID YOU SEE THAT, that was coming right at me!? OH MY GOD that airplane looks incredible in 3D! Look! (Hey, thanks, yes I can see it, I’m here too, but great that you literally pointed it out. Am I supposed to just watch or is this a guided tour of your 3D geek-gasms?) It’s as if somehow the novelty of this 80 year old technology has not yet worn off.

Are you trying to impress your neighbors? Do you look forward to casually mentioning your 3D TV at the office? You’ll just sound stupid, and you know it. Do you think your kids will love you more if you buy a 3D TV? Well they might, they just might, you vapid piece of crap. If a 3D TV makes your kids love you more, well that means you suck.  If you want to buy your kids’ affection, just give them money.

 Will you feel better about yourself if you get a 3D TV? Will you feel more prosperous? Why? Now don’t tell me, let me guess. You haven’t even thought about it, not really. You just knew 3D was cool, and if you could have it in your home, you would be baddass. 


There is no conclusion to this posting. 

After Further Review

After Further Review

There is a lot of football to scrutinize over the Holidays. The college season is winding down so a lot of massively hyped bowl games are taking place, and the NFL is heading into the playoffs.

And nowadays, watching football means a lot of this stuff:

“After further review, the player did not complete the process of the catch in the endzone. Therefore the pass is incomplete. 4^th down, clock operator, please reset the clock to :14 seconds please.”

Are you ready for some football?

“The ruling on the field is confirmed”

“The ruling on the field stands”

“There is insufficient video evidence to overturn the ruling on the field”

“Green Bay is challenging the ruling on the field of a completed pass”

“San Francisco is challenging the spot of the ball”

 It used to be the officials made some bad calls every game, and it was just part of the game. It sucked when your team got jobbed, but overall it happened pretty equally to everyone. Then in the 1990s something changed. Extreme slow-motion improved to the point that often enough, you could really tell if an official made the right call or blew it. Enter the American sense of justice. Enter the American spirit of indignation. If we can see a replay that clearly shows the ref missed the call, shouldn’t we be able to use that information to make the game more fair? Of course we should. Why wouldn’t we? Everyone just wants the call to be correct. 

Actually that is not entirely true. What everyone really wants is entertainment on Sunday afternoon. We happen to love football, it appeals to our bloodlust, our loyalty. It also appeals to what we might consider more lofty impulses; the appreciation of finely tuned athletes, team spirit and cooperation, perseverance, hard work, dedication. And of course there is the money. Lots and lots of it. Fox, CBS and NBC each pay a billion dollars a year to broadcast the NFL. That does not include other networks like ESPN, or the cost of airing highlights on other channels, and does not begin to touch ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, and all the rest. 

But there’s more, a lot more, and it’s stuff we don’t like to think about because it would make us feel crappy. For instance, instant replay appeals to our geeky side. It appeals to the whiner in all of us. Every American has a little bit of geeky whiner in them. In American sport we want to legislate, to litigate, to argue and debate just as much as we appreciate the sport itself.  A football game is billed as 60 minutes long divided into four 15 minute quarters. But if you add up the total amount of time from snap to whistle for the entire game, it’s only about 8 minutes. 8 minutes, get out your stopwatch next weekend and see for yourself. No wonder we want video review of every nanosecond.

The problem with replay in football is that it reflects our litigious nature, and if you really like the competition on the field, it’s pretty obvious that adding more and more elements to the review process just plain sucks. Oh and while I’m at it, football should stop trying to be so old school. For a sport that now video reviews every play, isn’t it purposely old fashioned to check a first down by bringing chains out on to the field? There are numerous other options to measure for a first down that would be faster and more accurate. But football wants those moments of the players huddled around the nose of the football waiting for the chain to go down – first down or turnover on downs? Drama. But there are ways of preserving that level of drama without the chain gang. 

The idea of replay is just fine, even good. It’s the way it’s carried out that sucks. It takes forever. Officials on the field have to wait for the booth review to confirm or overturn the ruling on the field, but there has to be “indisputable video evidence” for a call to be overturned and if there is not, the play stands as called. But in secret we love it, we’re whiners and geeks. We want to have an opinion of the new NFL process-of-the-catch rule and watch a dozen replays in 3D.

So if this is what we want, I challenge football to reinvent itself. To go high tech instead of a weird combination of old school and cutting edge. For instance if a pass was ruled incomplete during a replay, the official has to take extra time to go back and figure out where the previous spot of the ball was and how much time should be on the clock. It makes the replay take a whole lot longer. And while the commentators are watching the replay, they always point out that the officials are seeing exactly the same shots we are seeing. And yet if you pay attention to the complicated rules,  watch the replays and listen to the commentators’ opinions, it’s pretty easy to decide well before the officials what the correct call should be. Either there is an angle that confirms or overturns the call, or there is not. So if the call seems clear but the officials haven’t announced it yet, the commentators can then make the educated guess that they will rule an incomplete pass, but what is taking a long time is going back to figure out the previous spot and time on the clock. But shouldn’t that be instant and automatic? Shouldn’t the clock be overlayed on every replay shot so that this is never an issue? Shouldn’t there be a person in the booth whose sole job it is to say “okay if you’re overturning, the ball should be spotted on the 31 and the clock should read 3:52”. The replay official should never have to hold down the rewind button to figure it out. That’s just lame. 

So they finally finished reviewing a certain play, and now it’s time for the announcement. This is a moment for some serious drama. Everybody waits and watches and then the official says “after further review…” . Hey, I think we all knew he wasn’t going to say “I love hotcakes”. “After further review” is redundant . We know you were reviewing, we all sat here while you did it. Now just make the call. So on the one hand the official says “after further review, the player did not possess the ball through the entire process of the catch, therefore the pass is incomplete. Dallas will be charged a timeout, that is there second charged timeout, it is 4^th down at the 31 yard line, clock operator please reset the clock to 3:52” . 


I just want to eat cheetos and drink beer, not have a civics lessons.

What if instead of that he came out to make the announcement, waited a brief moment to increase the anticipation, and said “INCOMPLETE PASS” and that was all? Or “FIRST DOWN”. The crowd reaction would be tremendous if the official just made the call instead of stating the majority opinion. The officials aren’t wearing black gowns, not yet, so let’s just give the information needed, nothing more. This is how Hockey does it. They have super-limited replay only on goal/no goal situations, they do it really quickly, and the official skates out to center ice, pauses, and signals goal or no-goal. The fan reaction is tremendous. 

Back in football-land, there is also the not-so-secret subtext of the official saying either “the call on the field is confirmed” or “the call on the field stands”. In the first case, this means that there was enough video evidence to confirm the call on the field. In the second case it just means that there was not sufficient video evidence to overturn or confirm it. So what? We don’t need to know the officials’ thought process on making a call. When they call holding during the regular course of play they just say “holding, number 67 offense, 10 yard penalty”. They don’t say “after watching this play in real time number 67 of the offense grabbed number 92 of the defense which constitutes holding, which is a 10 yard penalty”. They just make the call and that’s it. Why do we have to have an explanation made out in the middle of the field of play on a replay? Just make the call and move on. It’s an opportunity to move the game along and actually create more drama.


Every year the NFL rules committee gets together and fine-tunes (read: hair-splits) certain rules, and not one time, ever, have they made things less complicated. They feel an obligation for specificity because the athletes are so good now, and they can do incredible things which require very specific rules to regulate. But at some point they headed down a very slippery slope with replay, and I kind of wish they would figure out that, when it comes to rules, more is not always better.