A Valentine's Day Solution

There are two kinds of Americans—those who love Valentine’s Day and those who hate Valentine’s Day. For those who hate Valentine’s Day I have a solution which I’m publishing now in order to give you time to make it happen.

Among the haters of Valentine’s Day are florists. Half their annual revenue comes on this one day. Florists sell a hundred and eighty-nine million roses on February 14.

Among those who hate Valentine’s Day are chocolatiers. Fifty eight million pounds of chocolates are sold in the first half of February—including 35 million heart shaped boxes of chocolates. Eight billion pastel colored hearts proclaiming fidelity on them are also sold in association with the patron saint of love.

On Valentine’s Day it is impossible to get a table at a nice restaurant.

In the week or so leading up to Valentine’s Day jewelers’ counters and mail routes—both underutilized most of the year—are clogged. What to do?

Eureka! A solution is at hand.

The fundamental problem is the same “problem” as Christmas—all that commerce and planning and anticipation and activity is funneled into a single day.  One cannot change Christmas (although some do sensibly celebrate the “twelve days of Christmas”) but one can certainly tamper with Valentine’s Day.

My proposal is to spread it over three days. February 14 would remain the same for unmarried lovers—those for whom nothing as quotidian as a weekday will get in the way of celebrating their love. Then (and here comes the revolution) the following Saturday will be Valentine’s Day for married couples. And, finally, the Sunday a week later will be Valentine’s Day for intergenerational love—when parents, grandparents, and children will shower each other with chocolates and roses and cards and eGreetings and meet at ice cream parlors and cheesecake factories.

The advantages are obvious. Florists will have two or even three weeks to vend their bouquets. Chocolatiers will also have the same extension of time to arrange and sell their delights. Making restaurant reservations will decrease in difficulty by 50%. And by the time the third Valentine’s Day comes around—think of all the sales to take advantage of.

And for some, best of all, you can take out both your lover and your spouse on their proper Valentine’s Day. Soon there may be only one kind of American.

Are trash cans too large?

Starting today, when you think about my opinion, think “garbage.” My own was picked up this morning and I feel guilty. Not about the waste but about the weight of it all.

Remember those 31 gallon aluminum cans that punctuated property lines in the 1950s? You can still get them, but I haven’t seen many in my neighborhood. Instead, I see plastic cans with tops that catch on a rim around the top. They start at 32 gallons. But as I look up and down the street I see much larger ones. I had to replace a Rubbermaid can that, at 32 gallons, came with wheels for convenience and had lasted 15 years. The bottom finally wore off from being dragged along the sidewalk.

So I bought a newer model. It holds 45 gallons of garbage and has larger wheels. I pull it to the curb every Sunday night and don’t think about it again until Monday evening when I come home and return the empty can to its sheltered shed.

But the process of selecting this new can led me to think about who would have to lift it and how difficult that would be. A 45 gallon can, filled with garbage bags, is too heavy for me to lift easily. I’m glad for the wheels. But the sanitation workers who come every Monday morning don’t have it so lucky. They have to carry the can to the truck and lift it up high enough such that the top is lower than the bottom allowing for the contents to spill out. Not just for my can, but for Ryan’s and for Vivian’s and for David’s and for Eric’s and for… well, for everyone in my neighborhood. These men spend their days lifting those cans up high enough to empty them into the compactor.

And a 45 gallon can turns out to be one of the smaller trash cans available at home supply stores. You can buy 64 gallon, even 96 gallon cans. 96 Gallons! That’s three times larger, three times heavier, than the can I bought in 1995 when I first moved to Easton.

Those sanitation workers will have to work as long as we who work with our heads, sitting at desks in air conditioned rooms. They won’t get social security benefits any sooner than you or me. Yet they do all this heavy lifting day after day, coming home with muscles melted and clothes smelling from week old mackerel.

It gets worse. I weeded the other day. Filled my old can (only 32 gallons) with the garden refuse. Even this relatively small can was then too heavy for me to lift. How do they do it?

Rain was in the forecast when I put that can out and I thought about those dutiful men and that extra weight of water. So I put an older mis-matched cover on top of the leaves and branches. Not a pretty sight, but it deflected an inch or two of water.

There are other things we can do to help out these men who relieve us of that which we remove from our homes as quickly as possible. Reasonably sized cans are one way. But there are others. When no rain is forecast, we can remove that cover so they won’t have to pry it off—house after house. Or we can loosen the cover so it rests easily on top and is just as easily removed the next morning. We can put our trash next to our neighbor’s (my own neighbor taught me this by quiet example)—saving the trash collectors a few steps and an extra stop of the truck. We can seal smelly garbage by double bagging it and we can rinse out our cans occasionally with the garden hose. And surely we can be careful not to hide broken glass or pointed or dangerous objects with the trash.

There are rules and restrictions on what sanitation workers have to pick up at our curb but I find that they always try to err on our side—taking things that they could have left behind. They work hard and they keep our community clean. They deserve some consideration and gratitude from us. At least when it comes to trash cans, bigger is not better.

Jews are Democrats

The High Holy Days this year accompany a Presidential election season. Should we retreat from political action and assess our own personal lives or should we see this as an opportunity to reinforce the Torah’s message to be politically active? One need not sacrifice either but I urge you to work for, and vote for, President Obama and a strong Democratic Congress and I say this for Jewish reasons.

The fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats is this: Republicans believe that America thrives when individuals are left alone to work hard and fulfill their potential. If, in doing this, you make a crappy Corvair or pollute our rivers or use your access to get unfair tax loopholes then the public will not buy your product and the “market” will force you to change your behavior to what is more socially acceptable. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that America will best thrive if we work together as a society to help those who, through no fault of their own, are disadvantaged. Democrats believe in the collective use of our resources (including taxes)—to fund, not just the military and an infrastructure for businesses to profit by (e.g. roads and bridges and police) but also good schools, a clean environment, orchestras, health care, parks, safe and efficient automobiles, a safe and fair workplace…

Christianity is about individual salvation. Judaism is about redemption of the community, the nation of Israel. And so our history in America—a country where Jews have been a part of the voting public since its founding—has been a history of liberalism. Every other ethnic group in this country has voted more conservatively after its immigrant generation—once it became economically secure. The Jews of America, uniquely, continue to vote with the Democratic party, even as we have become as wealthy and as “established” as Episcopalians. The Jews of Beverly Hills are as liberal in their politics as the Jews of Brighton Beach. There is a reason for this.

But assimilation may be taking its toll and this can be measured in our politics. While the Torah demands that our politics work for the immigrant, the poor, and the needy, it is no longer unusual to meet Jews who, without embarrassment, profess to be Republican.  I’m not speaking of the ethnic Orthodox, who have always been more aligned with socially conservative Christians in their un-Jewish opposition to women’s reproductive freedom, marriage equality, public education, etc. I’m speaking of wealthy Jews who, having succeeded economically, are now acting more like those successful Episcopalians. They have every right to vote for their own economic interests, but in doing so, they demonstrate that the American system, not the values of Torah, is governing their politics. Not only assimilation, but overheated anxiety about America’s support for Israel, are taking their toll. What a loss—to America and to Judaism.

If you look up the term “sin” in the (Christian) Interpreters’ Dictionary of the Bible you’ll find an odd final sentence. It reads, “When it comes to repentance there is no Old Testament remedy for sin. Only in the New Testament would that come.” The writer had to ignore the central message of Isaiah in order to say that. In our Yom Kippur haftara reading we recall the prophet’s message, “Wash yourselves clean. Stop doing evil. Learn to do good. Seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of (the vulnerable in society). Though your sins be like scarlet, they can be white as snow" (Isaiah 1). In other words, stop sinning. Start doing good. It is not God’s grace, but rather political action, that will redeem us. We can argue about some of the details about what “doing good” means but the Jewish teaching begins with the obligation to create a just society. This is why Jews have supported Democratic candidates more strongly than any other identifiable group in America—since the beginning. It is no less Jewish an act today.

No Representation? No Taxation!

We don’t know yet whether the Pennsylvania Voter ID law will survive its journey through the commonwealth and then the federal courts. But it is pretty clear to all that the Republicans passed this law to solve no problem other than the fact that more Democrats than Republicans would otherwise vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Governor Corbett, who signed this bill into law, used to be Pennsylvania’s Attorney General. While serving in that office exactly zero cases of voter fraud came to him.

There is no more sacred ritual in a democracy than casting one’s vote. It is an act so embedded in our history and culture that we have been unwilling to consider any change in the act—no matter how much more efficient or easy such changes would make our elections. To vote, one must go to a poll and physically enter one’s choices. You can’t choose to vote through your phone. You can’t vote via an ATM type machine that would give a paper record to enhance a recount if necessary. You can’t send in your vote via email.

Why is this ritual act—of voting in person at our specifically assigned polling place—so fundamental a part of being an American citizen? And what qualifies a person to be able to vote?

It is not the possession of a photo ID. It is not the quality of being an educated citizen. It is not the reward for making oneself well-informed about the issues. It is not about passing a literacy test or about speaking English. It is not even about being an upstanding citizen—without a criminal record (although many would deny felons the right to vote after they have completed their prison sentence).

The centrality of the vote in our country goes back to the Boston Tea Party—an act of defiance against the British government that imposed a tax on tea in the Colonies despite the fact that Americans had no vote or representatives in the British Parliament. It was in this fundamental act of American rebellion that we created a direct connection between taxation and voting. You cannot impose a tax on a people that cannot vote. Or, to put it positively, only a government that allows its people to vote has the right to impose taxes on that people. The legitimate taxation function of government is a direct result of democratic elections.

And now the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would deny that right to vote to anyone who does not have a picture ID.  This is a serious problem. But it invites a serious solution. Any citizen of Pennsylvania who is denied the right to vote should not be required to pay taxes. If the legislature wants all our taxes, it must allow all of us to vote.

Those who care about our democracy can go a step further. So long as the government of Pennsylvania denies the right to vote to some of its citizens, then all of its citizens should withhold their taxes in sympathy. Put them in escrow until the legislature returns the right to vote to all Pennsylvania’s citizens. That is a tea party that every Democrat and Republican of conscience should join.

Turkish Kaddish

This version of the chatzi' kaddish (traditionally chanted between sections of the Jewish worship service) comes from the repertoire of the Turkish synagogue in Vienna in 1881, according to Cantor David Benedict of Temple Israel in Lawrence, NY.  He  arranged and recorded it as part of a vinyl LP published by his synagogue in the early 1950s. It is sung by the Musikakademe Chorus (members of the Vienna Opera Orchestra). The synagogue from which it came was founded in Vienna by Spanish Jews who had fled the Inquisition in 1492 and found a home in Turkey. Cantor Benedict writes, "They remained for approximately 250 years and absorbed Turkish influence. Once again, they were uprooted and a group found refuge in Vienna, where they continued to practice their Spanish-Turkish traditions. The unusual music for the chatzi kaddish is irresistible in its charm and grace. The gentle rise and fall of the cantor's roulades form a lacework pattern, broken only by the amen response of the choir." The language of the chatzi kaddish is Aramaic--spoken by Jews in Judea during the Second Temple (Roman) period of Jewish history. There is no longer any trace in Vienna of the Turkish Synagogue. We revived Cantor Davisdon's arrangement at Temple Covenant of Peace in Easton, Pennsylvania in 1999 where it found a new and welcome home.

http://thepatio.net/kaddish/01 kaddish1.mp3

Biden Assures Nation that the President is a Macho Man

The commentators all seem to think that Vice President Biden goofed with the gaffe that President Obama is virile. Campaigning at New York University April 26, Biden referred to Teddy Roosevelt’s foreign policy that is captured by the phrase “Speak softly (use diplomacy) but carry a big stick (be sure to have a strong military in case diplomacy fails). And then the Vice President looked up from his text and said, very deliberately, “I promise you, the President has a big stick.”

This was not a typical Biden slip of the tongue. It was quite intentional. The Vice President read from a script. He knew exactly what he was saying. He was assuring the nation that their President is manly. How absurd. Some Americans think that the Commander-in-Chief who ordered the destruction of Osama bin Laden is not virile enough to lead the nation. 

It helps explain the irrational perverse and pervasive hatred that some have for the President.  There will always be racists and much of the hatred is the result of this—the Birthers, the people who call him a Muslim (as if that were a criticism), the people who call him (a frustrating centrist) a socialist, a Kenyan, a European…  But there is something else.

The first black President—like Jackie Robinson, the first African-American to play major league baseball—has to be very careful not to lose his temper, not to appear to be an “angry black.” And President Obama does this very well. He is not angry. He is by nature a calm, even-tempered, reassuring person. There is plenty of reason for him to be angry—given the cynical hypocritical and unprincipled opposition he has faced from congressional Republicans. But he isn’t.

It is this very lack of anger—required by his Jackie Robinson-like historical position and engrained in his natural temperament—that has infuriated some Americans.  They hate that he is a metrosexual. They would fear a black man who appeared strong or angry yet they hate a man who eschews violence, would not carry a gun, and lives in an otherwise all female family. Jimmy Carter may have suffered from this same prejudice. Most of our recent presidents have had only daughters but they also drank, hunted, philandered, or did other things to show their manliness. Obama, like Carter, does none of this.

The president is a symbol of the country and many Americans want that symbol to be a Texas rancher or a hunter or a military hero. President Obama just does not fit that bill. And so he is hated both by racists and also by chauvinists and by macho men. Joe Biden cannot do anything to change the president’s skin color but at NYU he did his best to change his image—from mild-mannered professorial collaborator who listens to everyone and seeks a middle path to a man who has a big stick, a man whose manliness defines him, a man who will stick it to you if you get in his way. Biden’s intentional and illuminating comment reflects Obama’s paradox—trying not to look too strong (and thus scary) he appears weak (and thus effeminate) to many of his detractors. No wonder he won’t take on the NRA. No wonder he is not leading the way for gay rights. No wonder he sits adversaries down to a beer. Biden’s remark is, in the end, not reassuring at all. It tells us how far we still have to go in gender identity in this country. It is very sad. 

Blood from a Stone: Happiness and an $838 blood test

My dental hygienist recently noticed that my normally low blood pressure had spiked so she encouraged me to get a check up. I did. It was Flaubert who said that “in order to be happy one must be stupid, selfish, and in good health.” Was my last chance for happiness at risk?

A week later the doctor found nothing abnormal but ordered a battery of blood tests, just to be sure. The bill came this week: $838.20. Closer inspection revealed that, after an “insurance adjustment” for $593.33, I owed “only” $244.87.

I guess I should have been happy. But even that seemed rather high, so I called St. Luke’s to ask about it. Maybe they would have sympathy and lower the bill… or perhaps just accept the “adjustment” from Highmark as full payment.

The hospital official was adamant about my paying the whole thing despite my meek effort to negotiate a lower charge. They wanted full payment but they were willing to let me pay $20/month until it's paid off, with no finance charge. Which I concluded was pretty reasonable of them and was the best deal I was going to get.

But over $800 for blood tests still seemed outrageously high a charge so I went a stop further. I called Highmark, my insurance company, to ask what they thought about St. Luke’s charges. What I learned shocked me.

The official from Highmark explained to me that the insurance adjustment is never paid. St. Luke's only gets the $244.87 they charged me. There was no real $838 fee for analyzing my blood. So I asked Highmark what that $838.20 is doing on the bill. Why imply that is the charge when it really isn't? Highmark's answer: “That is what someone would be charged if they did not have insurance.”

What?!!! I responded. People without insurance are charged over three times more than people with insurance? That is, insured people are only charged about 30% of what uninsured people are charged. And uninsured people have to pay the full, inflated, amount. Yes, she assured me. “That's the way the system works.”

I guess, Flaubert to the contrary notwithstanding, I have little hope for happiness.