When "single (blank)" is code for "state monopoly"

Massachusetts operates its liquor stores by letting independent distributors purchase and sell the liquor in retail stores.  Other stores let the state itself price and distribute the booze - a prime example being New Hampshire, where you can buy certain kinds of beer in drug stores but you could only buy the hard stuff at State Liquor Stores.

Due to yesterday's Hurricane Sandy, many stores were closed up and down the Eastern Seaboard.  Most reopened today - except for all liquor stores in Pennsylvania (via Consumerist, Philly.com), which closed per their Liquor Control Board "to assess the damage from Hurricane Sandy."

Now, if that meant "to prevent people from looting the stores for free liquor," that's one thing (and understandable - but no one should be denied a tipple in between cleaning out from a hurricane).  If it means "we want to make sure none of the stores were damaged," it's fine.  But when it's a vague phrase meant to keep people in the dark (no pun intended), and when people are crossing into Maryland and Delaware to purchase - it raises a lot of eyebrows.

One of the comments in Philly.com, however, drew my attention.  In reference to Pennsylvania's oft-maddening liquor purchase laws, which would make Ben Franklin drink,

"The truth is if [the Liquor Control Board is] run really efficiently, and being a single buyer for the whole state, this system could really have the lowest prices anywhere."

I take "single buyer" to be the code for "state monopoly."  Single buyer implied some nice middle-aged guy named Fred works in Harrisburg and buys all the alcohol for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  State monopoly evokes deep bureaucracies that we thought had died with the Soviet Union.

In fact, "single (blank)" is shorthand for state monopoly in anything.  ("Medicare for All" is the cynically cutesy code for "You have no choice for healthcare other than what we're offering, and if you don't like it, tough.")  This is why it makes sense when people want "single payor" healthcare, they really are referring to a state monopoly where a thick, unwavering bureaucracy makes every decision on health care as if they have a rubber band firmly tightened over their hinterparts, controlling every single aspect of healthcare from what we eat, how much exercise we get, how much sleep we get, and what medicines we're allowed to take.  The state and only the state gets to determine things, not individuals or businesses.

And that's what people really believe to their own selfish and myopic means: that if they're ruled over by the state, they will be treated benevolently.  Most often, they realize the harsher reality of a dictatorship: no room complaints and criticism, no freedom of movement, and a huge cult of personality they must honor, or else.

The real meaning behind "you didn't build that"

Mark Trumbull of the Christian Science Monitor puts forth an excellent column behind Obama's "you didn't build that" speech.

Here is the complete excerpt:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

And also the final summary, emphasis mine:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Now if you put both of those phrases together, they do make an abundant amount of sense, don't they?  Any President who is mindful that (a) people have a great opportunity to be successful and (b) are willing to put forth their dreams can do it.  You could of course do everything on your own, from the sweat of your brow, and turn out to be wildly successful, but it's an uphill battle.  If you get more people involved, it makes the job a lot easier.

"You didn't build that" to me, doesn't mean "The government built it, it gets all of the credit, so don't try anything funny."  It's more astonishment and amazement that without even the grain of help the government could give (better yet, the rules and regulations it could impose), the government is saying, "C'mon, are you serious?  You got absolutely zero help from us or anyone else, and it's successful?" Then once the person proves their success, the government can say, "Well done."

Again, reading the whole speech and not cherry-picking certain phrases the left and right like, you get the full picture.

UPDATE 9/2/2012: Kyle Smith of the New York Post has more.

Chief Justice Roberts' neat tricks

Chief Justice John Roberts did something I like in regards to the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare - it was certainly not a dirty trick, but a fairly neat one in its cleverness and simplicity.

After a few days of celebrating, chest-thumping, and self-congratulation, the hangover from the people who wanted ACA upheld will leave them thinking about something else.  "ACA is upheld, but what did they say about that tax thingy?"

In an election year, raising taxes in an election year is an election killer.  Walter Mondale, when running for President in 1984 against Reagan, stated thus when nominated by his party: "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

Little wonder why Mondale was trounced; Reagan won 49 states; Mondale his own home state of Minnesota plus the District of Columbia.  525-13 was the soundest trouncing of a Presidential candidate since 1936.

If you were running for office, would you want to celebrate imposing tax increase on those who don't have health insurance?  If a person doesn't obtain health insurance in the first year of ACA in 2014, they pay a $95 per year/1% of income fine.  Later on, it increases to $220/2.5% of income fine.  Multiply that by hundreds of millions of people who can't afford or choose not to purchase health insurance and you have the biggest tax increase in American history, as the ACA will be funded not just with people who elect to pay the fine, but people who might be fined for not having adequate health insurance as defined by the government.  Update 7/1/2012: Terry Keenan of the New York Post has more - including fines for small businesses paying anywhere from $40,000 to $140,000 for not supplying health insurance to workers.

Chief Justice Roberts' tricks?  First, he took away Obama's ability to implement the ACA through executive order, which might have happened if the ACA were struck down and caused even more problems (executive branch usurping the judicial branch would have caused a huge firestorm).  Second, he gave Obama and the remaining Democrats the distasteful task of telling voters why the ACA must be funded through taxes.  Voters who brought in the Republicans in 2010 through a "shellacking" will now likely make sure those who mention ACA as "good for them" be drummed out of office.  Third, and most importantly, Roberts assured the public that judicial activism - ruling from the bench - does not replace or circumvent the right to vote to strike down laws.

Hence, you could be a judge who is hell-bound to rule for their own whims and biases, yet it ultimately comes down to the voters who will make the final, absolute decision to uphold or strike down a law, directly through referendum or indirectly through voting in someone who will strike down the laws in question.  That's what voters did with Scott Brown in 2010 and with Congress months later - they took their displeasure to the ballot box.

Chief Justice Roberts handed the Obama administration a victory - but not a victory they want to promote.  In effect, Chief Justice Roberts said, "Try to defend your law as a tax increase on every single American - and don't be surprised if more voters decide to speak loudly through the ballot box."

Full disclosure: I work for a health insurance company.  My opinions do not reflect those of my company and are wholly my own.

A thirst for common sense

Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced an idea to limit soda sizes to 16 ounces.  The limit is only for sugary drinks that have over 25 calories per 8 ounces.  Diet sodas and water would likely exempted.  However, the city of Cambridge thinks this is an equally delightful idea, would likely include ALL drinks, all the name of "the war on obesity."

But myopic rules like these don't work.  They're designed to be stifling and show the laziness of governments not to do their research on health, to knee-jerk their way into control of the populace who consumes these drinks.  This is why rules like this get ridiculed; no law is worse than when proposed by someone who doesn't like what others do (and is tyring to get money from the government to fund such cockeyed schemes) and try to control others.

Furthermore, by disguising these stiff laws as "it's for your own good," they hide the real motivation behind them, which is "we don't like what you're doing, regardless of it being harmless, and we'll prevent you from doing it any way we can."  Types of laws like this usually devolve into resentment, confusion, and then revolt and black markets.  See the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s for an example of that success story.

A better idea would be to suggest that occasionally, a 20 ounce drink with as much sugar as your pancreas can handle is fine, so long as you balance it out during the day.  That's better than being laughed at as a crank and a control freak.

Five Years from Now: A new kind of commencement speech

I got this idea from Suldog, who in turn got his idea from a commencement speaker who put forth a pretty astringent speech to a set of high school students in Wellesley.  Mine might not be as funny as Suldog's, but all I ask is that you read. 

Good morning.

I'm not here to give you a happy, "the world is yours" speech.  I'm here to give you an idea of what happens in the real world - not the overpaid celebrity commencement speech world.

In the past few weeks, you've cleaned out your dorm rooms, said your final goodbyes, had your final off-campus party, survived your final collegiate hangover, and likely had your university supply you with your usual senior tradition.

This morning, you are here in your shirts and ties, your best dresses, your hair combed and curled and blown out just so, wearing your best shoes or heels, so your chancellor or principal can hand you a piece of paper stating you've met all the requirements of your degree.

Fast forward to five years from now.

Today, you may wear your spiral curls, spread out on your shoulders like the goddess Aphrodite, wearing your favorite slinky dress you wore to a sorority party where you met your future husband, plus a sparkly pair of Louboutin sandals to show off your opal-painted toenails.  Five years from now, you may be pregnant with your second child, with one screaming two year old in your ears, your hair tossed in a frightful mess, and cursing the husband you met at the sorority party for "working late" again, wondering if he's having his way with the secretary in his office.

Today, you may wear a Hugo Boss suit, a $125 tie, and tied shoes.  Five years from now, your human resources department, with your supervisor, manager, and two HR representatives, will hand you a box for your personal belongings because the company has gone out of business.  The remainder of the company will get that speech too, but as there is no more money, there will be no severance.  For many weeks after, you will not be able to find a job; whatever you did save will dwindle to pocket change; your health insurance will be cancelled, and that the only jobs you're qualified won't even cover your rent.

Today, you may have ended your academic career with straight A's from primary school, through middle school, high school, and college.  Your 4.0 GPA has showered you with accolades, praise, and the title "summa cum laude."  You were likely the class valedictorian.  Five years from now, you're in a hospital bed, IV's dripping with chemotheraputic poison because your PCP didn't like a spot on your brain and it turned out to be Stage IV brain cancer - which explains the slurred speech, the migranes, the dizzy spells, the vomiting, and the occasional spacing out.  All of your hair is gone; you've dropped from a robust weight to a thin, cachexic skeleton of yourself, praying for that last seizure or the death rattle.

Of course, today you're just here to get the hell out of this college.  You didn't want to be here; you got a 2.0 GPA just to avoid academic probation; you partied all the time, took drugs, and just didn't care.  Five years from now, you're in a prison cell.  The reason was spelled out by a judge who was tired of seeing you again and decided the rest of your life would be served best away from modern society.  She was tired of looking at your heroin-wasted, hyper-tense body, pleading for just one more chance to do good, even after the five other times you were caught hustling for drug money, but the last straw was a home invasion with your friends, and in turn one of your friends - to save himself from your fate - plead and turned state's evidence.  Karma got him - he was stabbed to death by a vicious prison gang member.

Those are the extreme cases.  You may experience other things nowhere nearly as unpleasant as what I've described.  I'm here to shatter perceptions, to transition you from the dream world to the real world, and to grab your attention, I used those stories as extreme examples.

Reality happens.  Dreams are often killed by something we don't prepare for - fate, if you will, has something in store to prepare us for real life.  To have commencement speakers pump the "go forth and be successful" drivel into your brains does you no good.  You could work hard and get nowhere.  You could follow your dreams and hit a hard brick wall.  Meanwhile, the commencement speaker is cashing their check for a new trip to the Carribean Islands.

Mary Ann Esposito, when telling her audience how to get the hairy "choke" out of artichokes, told us in an easy, laid back fashion, "You do nothing."  What she did is braise the artichoke in chicken stock, lemon juice, parsley, garlic, and mint, let it rest for awhile, and then with a spoon, popped out the choke very easily. 

Like the hairy choke that Mary Ann Esposito told you to "do nothing" with, "do nothing" with your life. 

Forget five year expectations.  Better yet, don't plan.   Let things happen, and you'll be pleasantly surprised where fate might lead you.

If you're successful in some things but not in others, that's fine.

If you choose not to marry, whether because you don't want to or for other political reasons, that's fine.

If you don't earn a million dollars, but can live very well with thirty thousand, that's fine.

If you choose not to have children, or decide to adopt because you physically can't, that's fine.

And for those of you who weren't valedictorians, who were satisfied with a 3.0 GPA, who didn't party all that often and got an occasional hangover, who didn't have a SO, who have a small balance on their college loans, who stayed anonymous - you were fine all along.

There will be times you'll have to live with your parents because you still can't afford to live on your own, attend court hearings to get custody of your children, go weeks without pay because you're on strike, sit through boring, pointless meetings peppered with business cliches and jargon, and so forth. That's life.  Just sit back, relax, don't plan, and let things fall into place.

Thank you.

The $18 gallon of milk and the $5 can of Pepsi

Nunavut, the relatively new province in Canada carved out of the Northwest Territories, is enduring high food prices.

Not just ordinary high food prices.  Food prices bordering on outright gouging.

Would you pay $104 (Canadian) for a case of bottled water?  Here, it's about $9-10, and the store-brand is about $6.

How about $10 for a bell pepper, where it's about $2 here?  A two-liter bottle of Pepsi for $19.  Store-brand chicken - here, you could get it for about $6 a pound.  In Nunavut, it's $65 for a 2kg package, or roughly $14.75 a pound.

Part of the reason why prices are so high is understandable - Nunavut has no roads, it is remote place, and fuel and shipping factor into the price.  But with Nunavut's minimum wage at $11 an hour, you can bet stores are exploiting the disadvantages of not having access to more stores.  If they are the only game in town, you can bet they're going to charge whatever they like and make a profit off of it.

Furthermore, Nunavutians could go to a major city, purchase what they need at a fraction of the price, and then ship it home.  However, shipping costs would easily negate this convenience - if shipping to Nunavut is $10 per kilogram and you're shipping 100 kilograms of food that cost you $500, that's $1,000 added to the price, easily double the cost you've purchased and increasing the per-kilogram cost to $15.

However, if you're a person with a narcissistic political bent, the cogs are turning in your head - just like cigarettes, you'd demand for a tax so high that few people buy the product you don't like.  Instead of an outright ban on bottled water, a town with a snobbish environmental bent (and a few bitter cranks) could charge $100 for a case.  In New York, where Mike Bloomberg is trying to limit soda sizes to sixteen ounces, he could instead charge $0.125 per ounce in taxes, tacking on $1 for every 8 ounces of soda consumed (64 ounces would command $8)  Or how about a two cent per calorie tax on fattening foods?  No one would want to buy a 2850 calorie milkshake if they're paying $57 in pure tax on it - or that 6,000 calorie Vermonster sporting a $120 tax!

'Elf and Safety? Stuff and nonsense!

"Health and safety" is a completely rational reason for shutting something down that is obviously dangerous.  For example, if you have a bunch of donuts on the shelf and one of them has been tested for salmonella, you get rid of the remaining donuts as a precaution.  It's a waste to get rid of the donuts, but there's that rare chance that salmonella-contaminated donut in your hand might contaminate others.

Abuse of "health and safety" as an excuse to exert power and be an obnoxious killjoy is rampant in Britain.  The list of what constitutes banning things in the name of health and safety is pretty darn stupid, at least to this Yank.  Unless you're putting rocks in hanging baskets, using an ironing board to try out your new chainsaw by cutting vegetables with it, it's just plain grating for town councils to wag their bony bureaucratic fingers at others.

It's also narcissism gone amok: if the town's image is so sullied by people doing ordinary things such as flying kites, tying up bicycles, pouring tea, and having bake sales, while sweeping drug use, larceny, burglaries and assault under the rug, the town's priorities require a massive reworking and shakeup, including the public sacking of the people responsible for using "health and safety" as an excuse to spoil other people's livelihoods.