Yue Yue - Never Again!

It is a central and universal teaching in Judaism that Torah can, should, and must be ignored to save a life. Bystanders have a "religious, ethical and legal" duty to help those in danger (even if they're non-Jews!).  So while I didn't hear about this story when it first broke last week, only learning of it from Geek in Heels today, I am sure it will surprise no one that I join the ranks of those horrified by this event. Originally I was going to say "shocked and horrified", but the more I thought about it, the less shocked I was. From Jenny's blog post:

But when discussing the story over dinner last week, my in-laws told me a couple of things that set things in perspective:

1. Due to the underdeveloped legal infrastructure in China, there have been many cases in the past where a good samaritan would step in to a stranger’s aid, only to be blamed and charged with the crime they had never committed.
2. Additionally, local laws dictate that if a person is found guilty of devastatingly injuring another person(s), they are responsible for all of the medical bills and expenses for the rest of the victim’s life. This, coupled with the fact that the majority of the Chinese population — especially in poorer regions like Foshan where Yue Yue lived — would not be able to afford to financially provide medical care, leads people to leave victims for dead rather than help. That is, they would rather go to jail for manslaughter than be in debt (and become a burden and embarrassment to their families) for the rest of their lives.

This isn’t to say that I — or even my in-laws — believe what the 18 passerbys did was right. Neither am I justifying their actions (or lack thereof, in this case).
But now that I have been informed these cultural factors, I can better understand what had happened.

While some blame China's pursuit of economic growth and educational system, most stories confirm Jenny's; Good Samaritans in China help others at their own risk. It even seems some good may come of this; at least one university has pledged legal defense support to Good Samaritans (and started a new meme in the process), and international attention has ignited a new debate about China's ethical future.

So horrified? Yes. Hopefully this will catalyze positive change? Yes. But surprised? No; not at all. This is, after all, the Capitalist ideal.

My high school government teacher used to refer to "capital-C Communism" versus "small-C communism" to differentiate Marx's political theory from the real-world governments of the same name - say what you will about its validity, Marx's theory never killed anyone; that was the government that co-opted it. It is in that spirit I refer to Capitalism; not the economic theory, but the way we see it practiced in America today, where people are financially incented to let their neighbor's house burn down. Where we take as given that we're willing to let children starve to death and freeze on the street, and only debate how much we're willing to let it occur.

Look, what happened to Yue Yue should never be allowed to happen anywhere ever again. Good Samaritan protections should be universal and powerful; no one should hesitate to help those in danger because they fear financial or legal retribution. But let's stop kidding ourselves that this obligation to help others only applies on the individual level, and only to emergencies that happen right in front of us. Starving a child kills them just as surly as hitting them with a car - it just takes longer.

None of us are obligated to save the world entire; what is expected of us is what we are able to provide and no more. It's the "and no less" part that gets forgotten. Some see this as encouraging individual action, with each of us giving as best we are able (hey; that sounds like small-C communism!). In truth, though, what we as a nation are capable of is so much greater than what we as individuals can do that it is unconscionable to me to settle for anything less.

This is the origin of my political "liberalism". Not a desire to coddle everyone or contribute to a culture of entitlement, but a deeply held conviction that when the power of the world's mightiest nation is applied problems like hunger, poverty, and sickness cannot stand.

Do I honestly believe we can feed, clothe, educate, house, and treat every soul in the world? No; not even every in our own country. But I do believe we can save many. And I, for one, want to be sure the next time a child dies that I was not an inactive bystander.

Speaking out

Last Friday ginandtacos asked, at what point should you speak up when you see a stranger is in trouble? 

Being a generally nosy and outspoken person, it's rare that I see her without wondering If I Should Say Something. Of course I never do. The excuses for avoiding it are so numerous. It's none of my business. She wouldn't care what a stranger says anyway.... Her friends and family are probably already intervening. I'm being paternalistic and sexist. And so on.

Like Ed, I am a generally nosy and outspoken person, so this is an issue I struggle with as well. Even in smaller, less life-threatening ways, like when I see people committing a faux pas because, apparently, they're new to the area and don't know the culture. Does my attempt to help them fit in override the rudeness of pointing out their mistake? What about confronting people who are themselves being rude? Like asking the guy sitting on the metro to give up his seat to an obviously pregnant woman; am I the hero for helping out - and helping this guy be polite, which he probably wanted to do - or a jerk for embarrassing him?

But those are trivialities. The more frightening examples are the ones Ed points to. Do I speak out when a friend seems to have a problem? What about a co-worker? A complete stranger? Especially if I'm acting only on my amateur analysis of the situation.

Sometimes, I've learned, people don't want - or aren't ready - to be helped. With my friends I've learned to be present and supportive without trying to change them. It's not easy. In the past I have had to essentially cut some of my friends out of my life - temporarily - because they were not ready to change and I could no longer be part of their self-destruction. At some point it's what they need from me in order to get better; at some point it's what I have to do to keep myself from going down with them.

But again, strangers are harder. Ironically, this is a place where "nice people" have more trouble precisely because they are nice. They - we, I hope - care about the other person's feelings, even if the other is acting a manner not deserving such compassion. Our desire to help runs into our desire to avoid embarrassing or upsetting them. I think that's why characters like House have so much appeal; here's someone that won't let hurting patients' feelings get in the way of helping them. We envy that...freedom. That ability to speak, to act, without reservation when we know it is right, regardless of the harm it may cause, secure in the belief the greater good will be served.

Because without it, all to often, we just watch. In silence.

There is a prayer in Judaism which asks God to open our mouths that we may pray properly. Several, actually. I have come to love this prayer. It addresses directly the issue Ed and I face. It asks God - whatever that means to you - to help us find our voice.

To give us the strength to speak.

Jewish kids are volunteering, just not for Judaism

And is anyone surprised?

From the article:

Of those polled, a whopping 80 percent [of Jewish youth] reported having volunteered during the previous twelve months. This puts Jewish youth far ahead of the general American population, among whom, in the past year, even the most educated showed only a 42-percent rate of volunteerism.

But in one critical area, Jews are not only failing to hold their own but are markedly underperforming. When it comes to volunteering for religious groups, a venue that commands the primary attention of about one-third of Americans in general, the comparable figure for young Jews is only 22 percent. The remaining 78 percent report indifference to the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish venues, with 18 percent of these actually expressing a preference for the latter.

Interestingly, the surveyed students were primarily Birthright participants. Which means that, in theory, they should be the most involved Jewish youth, or at least so fresh off this "life-changing experience" that they're looking for ways to help out. It makes the lack of religious volunteering even more notable.

Thinking back to my own experiences with Birthright, I'm not very surprised to hear they got these results from polling the participants. While I did have very intense personal and spiritual moments on the tour, one of the major take-home themes was that Israel is as modern a nation as the US. Tel Aviv might as well have been next to Miami instead of Jaffa, and the locals we met were "Jewish" in the same way most Americans are "Christian". I wonder if this message is backfiring by showing youth they don't need to do Jewish things to be Jewish.

Furthermore, generational research suggests the current crop of high school & college students are very resume minded. They are genuine in their desire to help others, but are very aware that it also looks good on college applications and the like. Given that, is there a concern that "limiting" themselves to Jewish organizations pigeonholes them too much? Are teens volunteering at Jewish agencies also applying to Jewish schools, and working in the Jewish community? Is it too defining, too limiting of the public perception of your personal identity?

A question arises: how is the study defining "religious groups"? Is it enough that a food pantry is funded primarily by Jewish charities, or are we looking specifically at teens helping out around the temple, joining youth group, etc? I assume they mean the former, which makes it a direct apples-to-apples comparison where the primary variable is Jewish affiliation. So we're teaching our kids to help others, and they're helping causes that relate to Jewish values, but they're not identifying as "Jewish" in the process.

And why should they? What are we offering them that enriches the experience? In a way I see this as the over-success of integrating "Jewish" and "American" identities; if the two are combined, why should I self-segregate by volunteering at specifically Jewish agencies? Modern Judaism is at a crossroads, and right now has stopped to consult the map, look both ways, and ask for directions. Meanwhile teens see a religion that's moving away from a stuffy, melancholy past, but not yet moving towards anything new and meaningful.

Of Petroleum Bondage

Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of BP treating the ocean like an unconscious drunken Freshman girl at a frat house ruining the Gulf ecology for decades to come. This year is also the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War, an event with no small thematic relation to tonight's seder. As I was listening to the Backstory podcast on "Why They Fought", the three events started coming together in my mind.

One of the must surprising points the American History Guys made in the podcast was that many, if not most, of the Southern solders were not slaveholders. So why did they fight to protect the institution? For some it was aspirational; they hoped to one day be wealthy slaveholders. For others it was because their livelihood, and the entire Southern economy for that matter, was dependent on cotton. And cotton depended on slaves. Ending slavery, therefore, was seen as enough of a threat to their financial well-being that they were willing to fight and die to maintain it.

When put that way, it started to make sense to me. I still could not condone it, but, I imagined, what if a law was passed tomorrow banning the use of all petrochemicals starting immediately? Heck, go smaller; just outlaw it as a fuel source. Don't even worry about all the manufactured products that contain petrol. How much chaos would it cause? How much would people fight; would it be enough to get them up in arms?

I think it might.

On a recent episode of Extreme Makeover Home Edition, the team built a net-zero house. All the energy would come from wind and sun; a small up-front investment would result in long-term savings for the family and the environment. It made me really upset - not that they built the house but that this type of construction is encountering so much resistance to adoption! It seems like it should be a no-brainer. Annual home energy cost in LA is about $1,500; given a 20 year life on a home, as long as the net-zero additions add less than $30,000 it's a net savings! And even if the end cost is slightly higher, the environmental benefit makes it worthwhile.

So why all the resistance? Because too much of our economy depends on oil. That has made the oil companies rich enough to buy into other sectors of the economy - and government - meaning change is unlikely to come from those directions either. The institution of slavery was economically "successful" enough that it, ironically, made the beneficiaries of the system prisoners to it, as did the Egyptians in biblical times; they had to give their lives to prevent its destruction. Likewise, we have become prisoners to oil.

As with the Southern soldiers, I understand but do not condone. Massive societal level change is frightening and difficult; incremental change is either too minor to notice, or small enough to be quashed. Finding the balance between "actually getting stuff done" and "societal disruption" is difficult. But it needs to happen.

Passover reminds us that we are, each and every one of us, slaves and descendants of slaves. That teaches us to look past any temporal "economic benefit" to see the human suffering behind it and demand release. Our endless need and quest for oil holds the Earth hostage; our economic gain comes at the cost of tremendous suffering by our planet and the living things upon it. We must see past that and demand freedom!

I make this bold statement, and then I will go downstairs, get in my car, and burn two gallons of oil to get to my seder. Because I too am a prisoner.

Happy Pesach

Are we equals?

I'm never quite sure what to make of things like this:




I support the cause of women's equality, and agree that the problems enumerated by narrator Dame Judi Dench are serious ones, but I feel like the type of equality she's asking for can never quite be reached, in the same way that we can never completely eliminate crime, homelessness, and violence. It's an asymptotic thing; we can get close to, but never actually reach, zero.

So at what point do we say enough is enough?

Her closing remark answers that question: "Until the answer is yes, we must never stop asking." Her statement is a reminder that, though we may never complete the work, we are not exempt from it. That perspective recasts this entire video for me and redirected my opinion on it. There will always be that last bit of equality to strive for, and as things stand today that "last bit" is pretty large.

That said, as I watched this video I was reminded of the epidemiologist that observed AIDS patients are now living long enough to die of other things. The video points out that two women a week are killed by domestic violence in England; that's tragic, but in 2008 (the most recent year I could find numbers for) murder rates for male victims were 225% higher than for female. So if we want to talk about violence as an indicator of inequality, let's consider the full picture.

The gender salary gap in America is still a problem, but during the recession unemployment is significantly higher for men (pdf). Furthermore, college admissions are skewing strongly female (57% since 2000), and young boys are more likely than girls to be illiterate, drop out of school, and go to jail. All factors likely to lead to lower lifetime earnings.

Remind me again which way that "inequality" arrow is assumed to be pointing?

My goal is not to play a game of "Who has it worse?"; that's a game you only lose by winning. The answer, of course, is to work on improving the environment for everyone. But that's part of why I have trouble with messages like that in this video, whatever the oppressed group in question. Archaic assholes aside, and I think we all can agree that is a demographic that needs to be quietly and quickly shuffled to the side, most members of the "privileged" group tend to honestly believe these "equality" problems were already settled. So seeing a video like this causes...confusion.

"I thought this was taken care of", the internal monologe goes. "What, exactly, still needs to be done? Am I supposed to apologize? Write my Senator? Donate money?" Compassion, and confusion, have been generated, but without a clear channel for these energies the mind deals with the stress by converting the emotions into something easier to deal with.

Like anger, or resentment.

I appreciate a good piece of messaging; I liked the video for the narration, even if I didn't understand what they hoped to achieve with Daniel Craig. For most of it, though, my primary emotional reaction was defensiveness. "Those poor women," I thought, "how they are suffering! What wicked, shameful group is oppressing them so?

Men?

...like me?"

I thought one of the goals of equality was to prevent media messages from making people feel bad about themselves because of gender, race, or equality; how does it help the cause to turn the tables on the "oppressor"?

Harry Chapin set a good example (in an interview that I now cannot find, dang it!). He talked about coming back to school the day after Thanksgiving break, and having the principal address the class, saying, "We did a great job with our food drive, collected a lot of food for a lot of families! Now let's talk about what they're going to eat tomorrow..." 

Ironically, this is also the tactic used on Biggest Loser; let's acknowledge our successes, celebrate them, and talk about how we continue moving forward. This is a format most people respond well to; it acknowledges both the work done and that still remaining, and provides a gentle, irresistible pressure to continue. Leave the stark, bleak, frightening messages for actual life-and-death scenarios, and politicians trying to raise money.

This is a good cause, I think: Stuff for the Poor

Our Temple is doing a used shoe drive for Stuff for the Poor. I approve of their noble (if poorly written) mission, but their model seems, well, strange.

As I understand it, they collect used shoes and other items, and sell these items to resellers for a profit. They use the money to provide education and other services for the poor in Tanzania, and the reseller has a supply of inexpensive shoes to sell at low-cost to those same poor people, many of whom have no shoes.

Sound plan, right? Helps 'em coming and going. So why does it seem so strange? It feels like I'm missing some subtle insidious plot hidden in what sounds like a helpful charitable organization.