How Good do we Have to Be?

While my family endeavors to single-handedly revive the economy this holiday season with frivolous gifts, and while we attempt to meet our charitable goals for the calendar year, a question keeps entering my mind: how good do we have to be?  Can we spend money on unnecessary items knowing that it could instead improve or even save another’s life?  Should we in effect take a vow of poverty, agreeing to forgo any of our own pleasures while others are in need?  If not, where do we draw the line?  How much should we devote to helping others while we pursue our own security and interests?

I suspect that a couple of hundred years ago giving was easy.  Living in the relative isolation of a small farming town in Europe, a charitable person would probably have given to their church or synagogue, nearby families enduring hardship, and the local beggar.  They you’d have it.  You’d be good to go.

Nowadays, when the woes of the entire world make headlines daily, it’s impossible to confine your giving to local needs without wondering about the atrocities occurring half a world away.  There is always more to do.  In 1800, a tsunami in Japan would hardly have been a concern for a person living in America.  Today, it’s another tug on our consciences.

Or at least some of our consciences.  A woman I met in 1995 said to me once, “Charity starts at home.”  The problem is, for many people, that’s exactly where charity ends.

A recent article in the Sacramento Bee discussed charitable giving and highlighted the One Percent Foundation, an organization whose members give one percent of their annual income on-line and vote for a cause quarterly to donate to.  They attract young adults primarily – those still in school or still paying off student loans and getting their career paths set – and while it’s a nice start to be sure, one would hope that it instills a habit of lifelong giving that grows as incomes rise, because one percent hardly seems enough.

Mitt Romney’s run for the White House this year highlighted the Mormon Church’s practice of tithing, whereby 10% of one’s income is devoted to the church.  This is similar to the tithing Jews set into law in the Torah, but after the Temple was destroyed, Jewish tithing was amended to giving at least 10 percent of net earnings to helping those in need.  This is somewhat ironic, since in fifteen years of attending Shabbat services, I've rarely heard that tithing is a goal Jews should be aspiring to.  By contrast, the Presbyterian church where I’ve played piano for the last year has already devoted a sermon on tithing and how we are not doing nearly enough to help those in need.

Then there are the mega-wealthy – Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the like – who’ve committed to The Giving Pledge, a promise for billionaires to give at least 50 percent of their wealth to charity in their lifetime or after.  Nice, I suppose, but not nearly as charitable as my 10 year-old son would be in similar circumstances.  I was overcome with pride last summer when he concluded that if we won the lottery, we should keep about ten percent and give the rest away.  I couldn’t agree more.

But we are not lottery winners.  We are people living comfortably but who have a mortgage, three college educations and a retirement to consider.  And we like to have fun.  Did we really need to buy five tickets to see “War Horse” in Chicago?  After all, if we’d instead donated that money to Feed My Starving Children, we could have fed a meal to 2045 people.  How can three hours of entertainment be justified?

This isn’t a no-brainer, but being human has always encompassed so much more than giving.   Education.  Art.  Beauty.  Creating.  Athletics.  Family.  Friendships.  Community.  Should we really forego great architecture and resort to concrete structures because there are people in need?  Should we stop commissioning sculptures, painting and symphonies?  Are movies and sports luxuries we should no longer succumb to? 

It’s comforting to know that smarter minds than ours have struggled over the years with these questions.  For my money, the most reasonable conclusion comes from the Babylonian Talmud.  It states: “One who wishes to donate generously should not give more than a fifth of his income, lest he himself come to be in need of charity.”  This might not cover the billionaires of today, but it could be a good guideline for the rest of us: try to contribute ten percent of one’s net earnings, and, if possible, up to another ten percent.

Either way, how good do we have to be?  Probably a whole lot better than we’ve been.

Method of Self-torture: changing one's email address

Purchasing a new computer after five years was a no-brainer.  Changing my email address after nine years?  Seemed like a good idea at the time.

I am currently in day four of email hell, as I attempt to notify and update every person, corporation, charity, school, credit card, utility, bank, college fund, theater and umpteen other entities that I have in fact changed my email address (though you can still reach me at paul@paulheinz.com from this website). 

Holy crap.  I thought it was bad when my credit card was stolen and I had to call every business who charged me automatically.  That was nothing.   

Gmail can now press on with the security of knowing they have a loyal customer for life.  Larry Page and Sergey Brin, I am now your slave.  I wouldn’t change my email address now if you promised me a Brewer World Series victory next October.  Don’t ever, EVER do anything that will jeopardize my @gmail.com extension.

What was truly troubling were the hoops some websites made me jump through to make such a simple change.  For financial institutions, I get it.  But some websites practically required a security clearance in order for me to be notified of the next 20% off sale.  Seemed a little excessive.  Particularly annoying: the number of sites that offered an “unsubscribe” link at the bottom of their emails, but NOT a “change email preferences” link so that I could simply update my address.

As of today, in addition to notifying all of my personal contacts, I have updated 60 (that’s right, SIXTY) websites.  And I’m not even a computer savvy guy.  I don’t own a smart phone, and up until last week, I was still working on MS Vista.  I gotta believe there are people out there with hundreds of websites to update next time they change email addresses.  What will they do if they ever change carriers?  (Other than swear a lot, I mean.  Which is what I did.)

The biggest challenge has yet to be resolved.  I must have set up an incorrect answer to my security question on my 401k website many years ago, because after three attempts, I’ve now been locked out of my financial data altogether.  Apparently my best man was NOT my brother, though when I look at my wedding photo, I seem him standing next to me.  Go figure.  It’s easier to change our memories than it is to change our email addresses.

Radio Essay on Letter Writing

Think letter writing is a lost art?  Well, you could write one yourself, you know.  My essay on letter writing broadcast on Milwaukee's NPR affiliate, 89.7 WUWM, on their Lake Effect program.

The Tylenol Murders Thirty Years Ago

One of the most gripping and troubling pieces I've read in a long time: Chicago Magazine's chronological retelling of the seven Tylenol murders that took place in and around Chicago in late September, 1982.  The tragedy begins on Wednesday morning, as a 12 year-old drops dead in her bathroom, and through dozens of interviews of family members, friends, political leaders, doctors and investigators, we follow the unfolding of events, hour by hour, as more and more people are discovered dead with no logical links.  

Except for one. 

Through the efforts of skilled professionals and a little bit of luck, in just over 24 hours after the first death it's concluded that cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules are the culprit.  Within five days, Johnson & Johnson recalls everyTylenol bottle from the shelves nationwide, resulting in an overhaul of how foods and medications are protected ongoing.

Hearing first-hand accounts of the mundane events that lead to so many deaths leaves you feeling hollow, shocked, angry and saddened.  You want to reach out and stop these ordinary people from making that fateful stop to Wahlgreens, or call out and tell them to forego the medication and just go to bed.

Vitality literally asphyxiated.  The crime remains unsolved.

The Perks of being an Author who writes his own Screenplay

We’ve all read good books that made terrible movies (“The Great Gatsby,” “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” and “Bee Season” come to mind), and some good books that made good movies whose final product bore little resemblance to the original (“The Shining,” “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”).  But what makes a good film based on a book?

Often, it comes down to the screenplay.  The new film, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, succeeds largely because of the continued involvement of Stephen Chbosky, who authored the 1999 epistolary novel, wrote the screenplay and directed the movie.  As such, the integrity of the material wasn’t compromised.  There are no Hollywood endings (Breakfast at Tiffany’s), no invented characters (Diary of a Wimpy Kid), no weird plot twists (what exactly was the point of the character Halloran in Stanley Kubrick’s version of The Shining?).  All the important plot points are there.  All the critical dialogue is there.  And since the book was only 170 pages or so, the novel didn’t need to be butchered to make it onscreen.  Yes, the Harry Potter movies are good, but so much material was relegated to the cutting room floor that some hardcore fans felt cheated.

I’d never heard of Chbosky’s novel before, but after reading a review of the movie, my daughters and I quickly read an ebook version of Perks and saw the movie to a mostly empty theater on a Thursday night.  Too bad, because the experience was moving and exhilarating, one of those rare examples of a film not only matching the book, but matching the absolute best in the genre of teenage coming-of-age movies.

Chbosky has written screenplays before, most notably the underwhelming film adaptation of the musical Rent, but the experience clearly paid off with the challenging task of adapting his own material.  The first ten minutes feel a little clumsy and forced as the characters and essential information is introduced, but once the characters are firmly established, the movie takes off.

Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame acts four years her junior in the movie, playing step-sister to Ezra Miller.  Together, the seniors befriend outcast freshman Logan Lerman, who’s struggling to find his place in the wake of personal difficulties, but he soon finds that his newfound friends have personal struggles of their own.  That Watson and Lerman would befriend a freshman so fully is perhaps a plot point that’s difficult to believe, but if you can suspend that bit of reality (and the reality that Lerman is actually a freshman – he’s twenty in real life), then you’re in for a beautiful ride.  It’ll be leaving theaters soon, but mark it down as a definite rental a few months from now.

On a side note, I must mention that Innocence Mission’s “Evensong” astonishingly made it onto the soundtrack of the movie.  I have no idea how this obscure track from an obscure album from an obscure band from 1991 made it into the film, but it was so good to hear.