Relatively, Espresso

This blog was simmering, simmering, simmering … and espresso brought it to a boil.

Last year I designed “Scritti Critici” (Italian for written criticism) and the blog existed in cyber-limbo until today, when I now gleefully christen its re-launch with a shot of espresso and a cup of ice:

I suppose it’s fitting the inaugural post is about the infamous iced espresso incident, given the banner image I chose last year as a placeholder, on a lark. Either art foreshadows life, or gnomes do espresso.

For those not familiar with the espresso blowout, now spattered across the blogosphere, here’s the story: A barista at Murky Coffee in Arlington, Va. denied one Jeff Simmermon, 32, an order of espresso over ice. Reason: the store not only has a purist espresso philosophy, but also wants to prevent customers taking the iced espresso to the coffee-condiments counter, where there is milk, to mix a concoction called a “ghetto latte.” Customers save about $1 doing this. With gasoline so high, I suppose, even yuppies are tightening their weekly latte allowance. (A gallon of gasoline and a 16-ounce latte being roughly equal in price, the curious statistic which emerges is that gasoline is less expensive than lattes, by the gallon.)

Anyways, the barista “grudgingly” gave Mr. Simmermon a cup of ice and the espresso, then insinuated that mixing a ghetto latte was “not okay.” Reeling from the snotty lecture, Simmermon left a nasty note on a $1 bill then, in this new media age, where the personal-is-the-political-is-the-desire-for-public importance¹, aired his gripe on his blog, “And I Am Not Lying, For Real.“

Because I habitually drink espresso, you might expect me to defend the customer in this instance. But let’s consider:

Certainly we can call the owner of Murky Coffee, Mr. Cho, an arrogant prick. We can tell him to go blow himself, as many customers did, according to the store’s public reply. For not only does the cafe have a “Soup Nazi” espresso rule, but it also prohibits napping in the cafe and, most absurdly, baristas refuse to answer questions about Murky Cafe’s hot chocolate. There are no modifications to the “Classic Cappucino.”

So, they’re self-important assholes. Coffee snobs. But are they wrong assholes?²

Is Murky Coffee under any moral or legal mandate to serve Simmermon or any customer an espresso over ice? Not any more than say, an Italian restaurant is obliged to serve ketchup with pasta simply because a customer asks for it. If you don’t like the way a restaurant serves food, and if they refuse to make modifications or substitutions, go somewhere else. The market is free for both customers and commercial propietors.

Espresso over ice is a small request that, in its ensuing blog war, says something much larger and philosophical: There’s the customer’s argument that the correct way to serve espresso is whatever relative way the customer chooses. Then there’s the owner’s implicit argument that there is a correct way to serve espresso, in line with an ideal form of espresso, or a Platonic essence.

It’s a worn debate perhaps, but a modern espresso tiff gives it a shot of novelty. The same people who vilify Mr. Cho for his absolutist coffee ethics adhere to a relativist dictum that is really absolutism in disguise–that “the customer is always right.” Right now, “the customer is always right” beats out “taste first” on creatdebate.com. But the popular argument fails on logic alone–in practice as everyone knows, customers, who are human beings and not God, can frequently be wrong.

The popular outcry perhaps has something to do with a culture that celebrates individual wants above all else, an economy that has fundamentally shifted to consuming things rather than producing them, and our expectation, influenced by advertising, that purchases and interactions should be customized. Call it the iPhone-MySpace syndrome. Me, me, me — the way *I* want it. And in the universe of causality, we can probably throw Starbucks culture into the equation, for where would capricious coffee discourse be without ?

For the record, I don’t believe there’s a correct way to serve espresso, but neither am I swayed by the argumentum ad popularum fallacy that the customer is always right. Expecting to get what you want all the time is the definition of infantile. Note Simmermon’s sadistic self-congratulatory posting of his scrawling on the dollar bill, “Fuck your precious coffee policy,” and his promise to return to the store with a “can of kerosene and matches.”

The universe rarely unfolds in our paths, creating that perfect parking spot on the corner of individual desire. Expecting such is a recipe for over-caffeinated implosion.

1. Or as David Foster Wallace mused in “Infinite Jest,” the personal-is-the-political-is-the-pathological.

2. Is it better to be likable and wrong or assholistically correct? Most of us, of course, would prefer both to be right and be liked by our peers, but if we had a choice, would we take asshole road towards righteousness or wander in likable error? Consider the following example: A pilot and copilot are having an argument over the correct air speed and altitude as they approach Los Angeles International. Feeling an intense desire to be liked and avoid argument, the pilot agrees with the copilot, whose calculations are off and because of this, the pilot smashes his 350-passenger Airbus into an outgoing flight of 400 passengers. There are no survivors. Who likes the pilot now? ³

3. Assuming Simmermon is right, he remains an asshole considering the dollar bill incident, blog post, etc. Now let’s assume he’s not right, which makes him both wrong and an asshole. As a general rule I therefore submit the following: When one cannot determine if he or she is right or wrong with near-100 percent certainty, it’s always better not to assume the asshole courage of your convictions. We can suffer assholes and we can forgive those who are wrong. But it’s very difficult to forgive wrong assholes.