Tomorrow is my first opportunity to participate in Dutch democracy.  I'm not sure if it's because I've now been officially registered in the country for a certain number of years now, or if it's because I'm now a property owner, or what -- but I'm going to vote for the municipal elections tomorrow.

The only prolem is that I haven't figured out exactly how I'm going to vote.

I've tried a couple of the different on-line "stemwijzer" (voting test) sites, plus I've read a number of the printed materials put out by the government and by the parties themselves.  But all this has done is help me to decide how not to use my vote.  That is, I'm pretty sure that I will not be casting my vote for the CDA, who has chosen to make the main thrust of their Amsterdam campaign a "Big Brother" like camera system to capture any wrong-doing that might happen throughout the city... And I can't really see myself voting for the Party of the Animals (making animal rights the primary issue) or the nationalistic PVV (a sort of anti-immigration party, like the 21st Century Dutch version of the 19th Centry American "Know Nothing" party)... But who should I vote for?

I'd be very open, if anyone had any advice they wanted to pass along to me.

For me, I'm voting primarily as (1) a follower of Jesus, (2) an immigrant, and (3) someone who naturally tends to prefer a less invasive form of government (i.e. someone who could tell the leerplichtambtenaar to relax a little bit).  But are there really any parties who tend to combine these issues?  Open to religious freedom, and even cooperation between the church and the government... But also more liberal in its views on immigration and immigrants' rights... While still entrusting power to the people, more than to the bureaucracy???  Do these terms ring any bells, for those of you who might be more familiar with the Dutch political system?

I've got some ideas for how I might use my vote, if all else fails.  I'm not going into things totally ignorant.  But if there are any last-minute pieces of advice that could be thrown my way, I would certainly appreciate it.

It seems to me that there's an unspoken cultural code in the American Midwest, which subtly discourages the celebration of one's own birthday.  One can celebrate a friend's birthday, whole-heartedly and unashamedly; but to celebrate one's own birthday by throwing oneself a party -- or even by simply informing other people, "Today is my birthday" -- is considered selfish and uncouth.  Back in college, a friend of mine coined the term "Birthday Announcer" to describe the type of person who goes around proudly telling people that it's his birthday; and I knew exactly what he meant.  There's just a certain perception about these things, back where I come from.  Perhaps I'm overstating the American cultural position here, but it definitely seems like birthdays are meant to be held as some kind of loosely-kept secret.

The Dutch, on the other hand, are almost categorically "Birthday Announcers."  Birthday parties are usually organized by the birthday celebrant himself (or herself), and it's even common for someone to bake or buy their own birthday treats to share with friends at work or in school.  There's no shame in celebrating one's own birthday.  And while it's taken me awhile to get used to the cultural shift, I have to say that there's something nice about the Dutch way of doing things.  It makes sense, actually -- and it helps to alleviate any potential feelings of self-pity or disillusionment.  Quite awhile ago, I started admiring the Dutch tradition of unashamedly serving as one's own "Birthday Announcer."  But I've still had a hard time crossing that cultural barrier for myself...

Until this year.

I feel like it's a sign of my cultural integration that I'm finally going so far as step across the divide and become a "Birthday Announcer" myself.  Indeed, I'm not only announcing my birthday (coming up on the 26th of February) -- but I'm also throwing my own party, together with two other friends who happen to share birthdays within a week of my own.  This week, I sent out the following birthday invitation by e-mail...

Dear friends,

Once upon a time, there were three friends living in Amsterdam.  They were different in many ways:  one coming from the mountains of Colorado; one coming from the farmlands of Ohio; and one coming from the flatlands of Zuid Holland.  But in other ways, they were the same:  enjoying good food, good music, good stories, and good time together with friends.  As fate would have it, their birthdays all fell within nine days of each other.  So one day, they decided to celebrate their birthdays together, with a big party.  They prepared all kinds of good food, good music, and good stories, and they invited their friends to celebrate with them in the heart of Old Amsterdam.  And they lived happily ever after.  The End.

OK.  So that may not be the best story ever -- but it does get the point across that a very special Storytelling Triple-Birthday Extravaganza is being organized for Saturday, the 27th of February, starting at 19:00 at the [e-mail me or send me an e-mail if you really want to know the address, so I don't have to post it here as a matter of public record]… And you are hereby cordially invited to join us for the celebration!  Patricia Flynn, Ariënne van Leussen, and Eric Asp are the hosts / birthday celebrants, and we are really looking forward to a great party.  Like most parties, there will be time for simply chatting while sharing in drinks and snacks and birthday cake (remember:  this is a party involving the baking talents of both Ariënne van Leussen and Marci Asp!).  But in addition to this, we will also share in several rounds of storytelling.  Not readings, like you might find at a typical open microphone event, but oral storytelling.  Thus: no pre-arranged, carefully worded, written accounts, but rather spontaneous, random storytelling, like you might have heard around the fire 1000 years ago.  The idea came from the Mezrab Cultural Café here in Amsterdam -- where people regularly gather to share myths, fables, legends, remembrances, and personal anecdotes -- and it seemed like a fun idea for a birthday party.  Yes, of course, you could choose to share stories that involve the birthday celebrants (i.e. stories about Patricia, Ariënne, and/or Eric).  But this is by no means the only type of story allowed.  You could share an amusing story about something that happened to you on your way to the supermarket… or make up a legend about how the leopard got his spots… or tell a stylized version of a Bible story… or pass on a treasured family story about how your grandparents got married… The possibilities are nearly endless!  The specific form of the evening will be determined by those of you who come to celebrate with us.  We just want to spend time enjoying the company of good friends enjoying good stories.

So all that to say this:  please mark your calendar for Saturday, the 27th of February, starting at 19:00 and going until late (towards the end of the festivities, there may even be some dancing!).  If you wanted to bring a nice card or gift or bottle of something to drink, that would certainly be welcome.  But more than anything, we hope that you will be able to come with your stories and be a part of the fun.  We're looking forward to celebrating with you at the end of the month…

Patricia
Ariënne
Eric

And to show just how Dutch (and "Birthday Announcerish") I've become, I thought I might even go so far as to post the invitation (with the exception of the location information, to protect my friends' privacy) here on my blog, just to make sure that I haven't forgotten anyone.  If you'd like to come and celebrate with us, please let me know and I'll supply you with the rest of the information.  Forgive me, my Midwestern friends, if it seems that I've gone astray.  I promise that, on this particular point, it's only one day of the year. :-)

Link: http://proverbs365.ericasp.com

I thought today's post in the Proverbs 365 project might be interesting to cross-post on this blog as well.  It's a reflection on Proverbs 17:5, in light of recent comments made by Christian commentator Pat Robertson, entitled, "P1705 - Oh, Pat..."

He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished (Proverbs 17:5).

Have you heard about the recent comments from Christian commentator Pat Robertson, about the earthquake in Haiti? Sometimes the view of the situation can become distorted by speculation on a few words from a longer statement, so I'll include the majority of his controversial quote, for clarity's sake. Here is what he said: "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal... That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle; on the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come. But right now we are helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable."

Even with some of the greater context of Reverend Robertson's comments considered, most of us cannot help but respond with some sense of "Oh, Pat..." Why, oh why does he keep saying things like this (I remember similar comments around the time that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans)??? Doesn't he realize the way these comments are taken by the rest of the world? Doesn't he realize how his comments reflect on the Christian faith in general? Just about everyone knows that there's no honor in kicking someone while he's down. But we who follow Jesus should be especially considerate in these situations! We need to remember that he who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker. We need to remember that whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished.

We also need to remember that sometimes our best comment is no comment. Personally, I wonder if this is how Pat Robertson's foot has found its well-worn path into his mouth. Namely: he has his own talk show, where "Christian" commentary on current-day events is expected, day-in, day-out. And when something has to be said about everything, we're naturally going to make stupid statements. I do the same thing myself, sometimes -- and I'm especially aware of these dangers in preparing a whole year's worth of daily devotions on the Proverbs. It's important for all of us to take the "lesson" that needs to be taught to Pat Robertson, and teach it to ourselves. If you think you're any better than Robertson, I would challenge you to simply consider the challenges of constant content creation. Just about every radio commentator I can think of has said something thoughtless, ridiculous, and offensive at some point or another -- because, think about it, radio commentators have to fill up hours of air-time every day. And all of us, too, have said stupid, regretable things at some point or another. This isn't necessarily a defense of Pat Robertson's comments; he still said really foolish, anti-biblical things for which he is fully responsible. Still, we need to be careful in pointing fingers at Pat Robertson, even as he's pointing fingers at the Haitians...

We're all susceptible to these dangers, whenever we try to become "experts" in an area of life in which we have no place playing that role. Coming back to the poverty and disaster situations, even world-class economists and geologists cannot explain or solve the most basic problems of poverty and earthquakes -- so why on earth would we try to do so?!? We just have to accept that the poor are among us, and we're all not so far from falling victim to the same fate ourselves. Instead of pointing fingers to condemn, we need to offer hands to help, to be good neighbors. I don't know if that necessarily makes for good television commentary -- but it certainly makes for a good life.

As a general rule, young Amsterdammers are independent thinkers, fiercely committed to fair trade, generally ideologically opposed to "globalization," and by most all accounts quite liberal.  Yes, I'm trucking in stereotypes a bit here -- but I think most would agree that Dutch young people are generally the type of people who would show up wherever the G8 Summit might be taking place and protest the "Evil Capitalist Elite."  You know the type that I'm talking about, don't you?  They are politically active, they think green, and they are almost categorically against any sense of "The Man."

So I think it's ironic -- and a little bit funny -- that young Amsterdammers also seem to be crazy about Starbucks.

I find it ironic because Starbucks seems to epitomize globalization (with hundreds of franchise locations around the world -- and an almost inescapable corporate presence in so many cities)... they seem to serve as something of a poster child for American Capitalism (with large amounts of liquid being sold at hefty prices)... and -- while they do seem to be more committed to social responsibility and ethical business practices than many other world-wide businesses -- everyone still knows (deep down, though they don't always like to admit it) that Starbucks is the personification of the "evil mega-corporation" that could very well serve as the front for Dr. Evil's quest for world domination.

I don't know why it's taken Starbucks this long to make any significant inroads within the Netherlands (rumors abound on this subject) -- but a couple of years ago, a Starbucks appeared on the inside ("for passengers only") part of Schiphol Airport.  A year later, a Starbucks popped up outside of the gated area, where anyone could access the establishment (presumably while picking someone up or dropping someone off).  And now, within the last couple of months, Starbucks seems to have struck a deal with the Dutch National Railroad, putting Starbucks stores within several of the main train stations throughout the country (including Amsterdam Centraal Station).  And now, there are long lines of young Amsterdammers lining up to spend their €6 for a small cup of espresso-based beverage... while still holding fiercely to their anti-global, anti-corporate, anti-American sentiments.

Doesn't this seem ironic and incongruent to anyone else?

I don't understand it.  I don't condemn any position on the spectrum, given that I, too, don't want to have anything to do with promoting slavery or injustice in the developing world -- but I do enjoy a good Caramel Macchiato whenever I can get one. :-)  But I am fascinated by the apparent contradiction and subtle hypocrisy that creeps into the picture in situations like this.  How does Starbucks do it?  I think they have to be geniuses!  They trade with the best of the mega-corporations on Wall Street, but they simultaneously find friends among the protesters and progressives in the Pacific Northwest and beyond.  How do they do it?  They're geniuses, I'm telling you.  Either that, or we're all dupes...

Marci got me started with listening to This American Life.  It's a radio program, broadcast by Public Radio International (PRI).  For the last couple of months, I've been downloading their weekly podcast and enjoying the program while I bike throughout Amsterdam.  My main reasons for enjoying the program are its artistry and entertainment.  Just plain good storytelling.  But this week's episode about health care in the United States was not just entertaining and artistic (as usual), but also remarkably educational.

Health-care in the USA a very worn-out topic, but I feel that this piece covered it from some angles that I had never heard before.  You'd have to hear the whole episode to know what I'm really talking about, but I was particularly intrigued by one anecdote from "Act 2" of the program.

It tells the story of a teenage girl who was in a minor car wreck.  As a precaution, she was brought into ER, with her neck stabilized as a precaution against potential spinal injury.  When the doctor on the scene performed some manual exams, he was able to determine that a fracture was extremely unlikely and that the girl was, in fact, not seriously injured.  When the girl's father showed up, however, the doctor was confronted with a very different situation:  "a very tall, very powerful figure who was very upset and spoke very loudly and he also happened to mention that he was a lawyer and that there would be consequences for anyerror that we made."  Basically, in spite of the physician's professional opinion, the teenaged girl's father demanded not just an x-ray but a CAT scan, which involves significantly greater cost and greater exposure to radiation.  As the doctor explained on the program, the dangers that an otherwise healthy girl would face by taking an unneccessary CAT scan could eventually result in not just trivial harm, but "important harm" (for example, a greater risk of thyroid cancer later in life).  But the father persisted in his aggressive tactics, insisting on a CAT scan.  Again, the doctor was 99.9% sure that a CAT scan would be more harmful than beneficial to the patient, but he was faced by a dilema that he was suddenly able to articulate to the patient's father, like an epiphany, as he explained to him below:

 "You know, for me it really is the right thing to do the CAT scan.  If I don't do the CAT scan, you're probably going to lodge a complaint about me; if I do the CAT scan, you're going to be really happy with me.  In addition, I'm almost certain that your daughter is fine; but there's a, maybe, one in a million chance that she isn't, that there really is a hidden factor and I'm missing it.  If that's the case, then the CAT scan will save my butt.  On the other hand, if I do the CAT scan and your daughter gets a cancer, maybe 20 years from now, no one will blame me.  In addition, I'm spending a lot of time talking to you here that I need to be going and doing other things.  If I got the CAT scan, I could do it in a second.  It would be done with; it would be easy.  Finally, the really strange thing is that I'll get paid more if I do the CAT scan.  With the way that  bills are made, you get paid more for more complex patients.  The insurance companies of the world think that it proves that the patient was more complex and more difficult if you had to do a CAT scan!  So everything about this was pushing me to do the CAT scan.  There's only one problem:  which is that when I decided to become a doctor, I made a pledge.  And the pledge was that I would put my patients' interests in front of my own interests.  In this case, my judgment was that it was not in my patient's interest to do the CAT scan, and therefore I can't do it."

Eventually, the father of the daughter from the car accident elected not to press the issue further, and the doctor's judgment stood.  But the whole situation dramatically illustrated many of the problems facing health care in the United States of America.

I've run across many of these same dilemas, first-hand, since moving to the Netherlands and experiencing a different health care system.  To be honest, the Dutch system has often frustrated me, the disgruntled American patient.   But I've been learning about how things can be done differently.  And the above-mentioned broadcast helped to make things even more clear.  Perhaps you'd be as interested in listening to it as I was.