Susan's Musings

Dear O Magazine

A few years ago after visiting my daughter, I was heading to the airport to return home when I realized that I had no reading material. Rachelle’s roommate offered me her copy of O, Oprah’s monthly magazine. I probably would never have picked this magazine up on my own and I had never seen an Oprah show, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. To my surprise, the quality of writing was impressive and the range of topics notably wider than in most women’s magazines. I began reading it regularly. Aside from many well-written and interesting articles, I appreciated getting a window into the Oprah phenomenon which has had so much influence on our society. While many of my own views are completely opposed to those espoused by the magazine, reading it helps me understand what ideas are shaping so many women’s attitudes. I also find, to O’s credit, that it is not monolithic in its approach and sometimes unexpectedly presents views sympathetic to traditional values. Almost every issue has something which I appreciate as well as something which makes me squirm, but this October, I was so appalled at what I read that I sent off a letter to the editor. It was not published, so I am using this venue to share it.

Dear O,

Over the years, I have mostly enjoyed getting O. On more than one occasion, however, I was disturbed by the bigotry which the magazine promoted. I kept letting it slide, but the October magazine moved me to write.

In the October issue Donna Brazile said, “Conservative businessmen don’t generally pay a lot of attention to middle-aged black women.” Which conservative businessmen did Ms. Brazile mean? The ones I know who use their annual vacations to help build orphanages in Africa and S. America? The ones who spearhead their local Rotary and Lion’s clubs, helping not only their own communities but ones around the globe? Perhaps she meant those who donate to and fundraise for charities such as Fisher House, which helps many middle-aged black women whose sons have been injured in military service for their country? Or the thousands of conservative businessmen who work diligently and with no guarantee of success to provide products that improve the lives of middle-aged black women and others? Was she smearing an entire group for the actions of a few men she has met? Isn’t that one of the definitions of prejudice?

This is only one example of many over the years. It is easy to call for others to be more open-minded but it is hard to see our own flaws. The liberal community in America falls prey to this difficulty. More Americans classify themselves as conservative than they do as liberal, but in some industries including much of the media and academia finding a conservative is like searching for the perfect diet – futile. Instead of trying to understand those whose political values differ, there tends to be a tendency to consider conservative voters either stupid or evil. Too often, a smug and self-congratulatory attitude predominates, which hampers us from reaching goals which would actually help everyone in society.

I am regularly appalled at the widespread bigotry against conservatives and businessmen, especially those who are Christian (I am Jewish). It would be great if Oprah magazine could examine itself, admit its own biases and commit to change.

Sincerely,

Susan Lapin

No Price Too High?(guest post)

Anyone who is neither evil nor wacky rejoiced at the return of Gilad Shalit to his family after five years in captivity. Anyone who is not naïve also felt emotions ranging from concern to trepidation, and even grief and anger at the release of terrorists which secured his freedom. One can wish the Shalit family well and still think that Israel’s actions were terribly wrong. Over the past few days, I have heard numerous conversations which sound something like this: “What do you think?” “Of course I’m happy, but…” Quite frankly, my own feelings were running too deep to write down my thoughts. So, I am grateful that my son wrote down some of his and is allowing me to share them. I found myself appreciating his suggestion that, for just a short while, we focus solely on the Shalit’s joy. At the same time I think he makes an important point well worth pondering.

This morning witnessed the return of a son of Israel, Gilad Schalit, after almost five and a half years of captivity. I do not want to discuss whether the exchange of one man for over one thousand terrorists with the blood of hundreds of Jews on their hands was a wise one. There will be a time for that, but today is not that day. Today is a day for Jews to unite and share in the joy of the Schalit family and of all of Klal Yisrael (the community of Jews).

But, these events have brought to my attention a disturbing viewpoint that I believe needs addressing. Facebook is currently filled with statuses such as these:

No price is too high!

One Jew is worth any number of terrorists!

Some of you are disgusting! Stop focusing on the bad implications of the trade! Our brother is coming home!

I have no doubt that their motivations were entirely pure, but statements such as these capture a fundamental problem that lies at the root of many of the poor policies implemented in both Israel and the United States.

You may have heard a similar idea expressed with regards to another policy. For example, "Even if the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers decreases to one person per year, that would still be one person too many." Or, "Of course we should put nets up on the sides of the Golden Gate Bridge! If it stops just ONE person from committing suicide then it will have been worth it."

The flaw in these arguments is only looking at the benefits and disregarding, or worse not even considering, the costs. If one death from drunk driving were really one too many, then I have a very simple plan that could be implemented to guarantee an end to all motor vehicle related collisions: Ban motor vehicles. Or, if you'd rather, install speed governors on all motor vehicles in the United States limiting their speeds to 5mph. Think of the benefits! No deaths from motor vehicle collisions (the leading cause of death in the US for people 5-34)! Reduced carbon dioxide production! However, no one in their right mind would implement this, because...wait for it...THE COST IS TOO HIGH.

All suicides must be prevented? How much are you willing to contribute from your paycheck to erect nets at every elevated point in your city? $10? $100? $1,000? I'm not sure what the point is, but I guarantee you that at a certain point it is no longer worth the cost to you. Especially considering that the money could also be spent in another manner, perhaps a more effective one, to prevent suicides. Once again, THERE IS A COST.

When seat-belts and airbags were made standard equipment, required by federal law, in all cars in the United States, the motivations were pure. After all, who could possibly be against saving lives? But did anyone consider the corresponding price increase of those cars? Did anyone consider the newly arrived, poor immigrant who would be more than happy to drive a car without airbags that fits his budget? Or the tax increase needed to pay for the new airbag inspectors and the bureaucrats needed to implement the new policy? Honestly, I don't know. But the point is, that THERE IS A COST.

With regards to Gilad, once again, there is a point at which the price is too high. I do not know what that point is, perhaps this deal is beyond that point, and perhaps it is not. For the purposes of this piece, it is irrelevant. However, every decision has a cost, and unless that cost is truly considered and weighed against the benefits, a wise decision cannot possibly be made.

 

 

Duh! Moments

Every morning for the last few months, I gingerly sidled around my desk to reach the window blinds. Frequently, I knocked over one or two items on the way, since the path to the window is narrow. This morning I realized that if I moved my desk back by about an inch and a half, I wouldn’t have to suck in my breath to access the blinds. Duh!

One of my more frustrating kitchen moments comes when I hold a dirty plate and can’t figure out if the dishwasher ran. Is it full of clean dishes or did I just do such a good job of rinsing that they look clean but aren’t? For $4.98 I purchased a panel which sticks on the appliance. It has a sliding door which, when moved, uncovers the words, “dirty” or “clean.” When I remember to use it (o.k., the system isn’t perfect) it eliminates needing to carefully peruse each item in the dishwasher trying to determine its sanitary rating. Duh!

Over the years, I have lost a fair number of my favorite earrings. These weren’t expensive jewelry, but earrings that I particularly liked. They shared a common component. They all had an open back. It is embarrassing to say how recently I discovered that for a few dollars, I could buy a package of plastic rings which fit over the back of these types of earrings, stopping them from accidentally slipping off. Duh!

Life is full of these “duh” moments. Sometimes you see another person doing something clever. Sometimes you hear an advertisement for exactly what you need. Sometimes, a light bulb goes off in your head as you look around you with fresh eyes. The solutions are usually inexpensive; they are frequently free. They often make you metaphorically slap your forehead in dismay at your prior obtuseness.

Sometimes companies have a Duh! moment. If you are above a certain age you might remember when the Hershey’s baking cocoa box had a ridiculous circle through which you were supposed to spoon out the product. Invariably, the powder spilled and you could never get the last bit out of the container. One day, that hole disappeared and under the lid was a completely open top. The new design probably even cost less to manufacture. Duh!

Frequently, pronouncements of academics sound like Duh! statements. This morning’s Wall Street Journal had two doozies. The editorial summed up the ideas of one of this year’s Nobel Prize winners in Economics, Thomas Sargent, as, “…people do not respond passively to changes in economic policy or circumstances. They anticipate future conditions and adjust according to their best interests.” I am sure that Mr. Sargent, and his co-winner Christopher Sims, have done worthwhile work. But, really, are you shocked to hear that the idea that people change their behavior in response to economic reward and punishment? One can only say -Duh! Another article proclaimed, “Tots as young as 3 can be generous while others are inclined to hog.” Children’s personalities aren’t all identical? Duh!

All in all, I prefer my own Duh! moments. I cannot exaggerate the pleasure I get from opening my blinds, knowing when to run the dishwasher or confidently donning my earrings. As an added bonus, no tax dollars were involved in my epiphanies and no animals or people were harmed in the process.

Neighbors

For most of my childhood, my grandparent, aunts, uncles and cousins all lived in the same, general area. Even those who moved “far away” were usually within an hour’s drive. Family relationships were augmented by neighbors who became friends, the relationships often emerging more from proximity than from shared interests. One of my closest companions from before my memories start was JoAnn, who lived down the block. We had a lot of fun, but we didn’t have a lot of choice. It would never have occurred to our mothers to make play dates and arrange transport for little girls. They unlocked the door in the morning, expected their daughters back for lunch and supper, and assumed that they would find companions without leaving the block.

My friendship with JoAnn was a weekday one. Saturday was my Shabbat and Sunday her day for church. I went to a Jewish school; she to the local Catholic one. Our differences went beyond religion, though. I was an avid reader while JoAnn’s mother had to coerce her into reading anything at all.  She enjoyed fixing hair and trying out new styles while I wasn’t terribly interested in fashion.  Had we met in the classroom or at a camp, we probably never would have gravitated to each other. But for those many years during which we were too young to venture far, we played hopscotch and stoop ball, and spent many summer days splashing about in her four foot deep plastic pool. We rode endless circuits around the block and if memory serves me right, were intrepid spies who more than once saved civilization from utter destruction.

We knew each other’s families. JoAnn and her siblings rotated spending evenings with her grandmother, and I joined her in visiting the black-clad, elderly widow who knew as many words in English as I knew in Italian. I knew more about communion and convents than most of the kids in my class and JoAnn knew more about less popularized Jewish festivals, like Shavuot or Shmini Atzeret, than the majority of Jews.

All the families on our block were either Italian-Catholic or Jewish. Across the street lived an older Jewish couple. For many years their youngest daughter was a favorite babysitter for many of the families on the block.  After her marriage, this young woman and her husband took an apartment next door to her parents.  A few years later, we were all shocked when her father died suddenly.  Jewish burials take place as quickly as possible, and within 24 hours matters were arranged. I was considered too young to go to the funeral with my mother, but old enough to stay home alone. Our ex-babysitter’s toddler was sent across the street to JoAnn’s house.

About two hours after my mother left, JoAnn came running down the block. Their young Jewish charge was hungry and her mother, knowing that it was Passover and how the food restrictions on that holiday are extremely serious, was hesitant to give him as much as a fruit from her kitchen. I solved the problem by sending over kosher for Passover food, but it wasn’t until years later that I recognized and appreciated the sensitivity and respect which JoAnn’s mother exhibited.  

People endlessly talk about multiculturalism and the need for valuing all ethnicities, races and religions as if America in decades past was a hostile and evil nation for all but a select few. To speak that way is an insult to so many who, like the people on my block, treated each other with dignity, were quick to help one another, and who created safe and secure neighborhoods for their children.