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. :-)
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.
I saw this photograph on the The Big Picture, and I was so moved by it that I thought I'd post it here as well (with its original caption copied beneath).

President Obama bends over so the son of a White House staff member can pat his head during a family visit to the Oval Office May 8, 2009. The youngster wanted to see if the President's haircut felt like his own. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Now I'm not totally ga-ga over Barack Obama, like many others. I have genuine issues with some of his policies -- but I really respect him as a person (at least what I know of him). And it's especially meaningful to see the way that his life offers significant hope for future generations of African-Americans.

I've been reading a book by Doris Kearns Goodwin called "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." And I have to say that I've been freshly impressed by the character and personality of the 16th President of the United States of America.
Abraham Lincoln was a man who knew hardship. He grew up in complete poverty, with an abusive father and a mother who died when he was just nine years old. He was never afforded the advantages of formal education (he himself estimated that the entirety of his formal education -- all the way up until passing the Lawyers' Bar Examination in Illinois -- amounted to less than one year). He had to learn everything he learned strictly by self-study, snatched from any time he could get away from hard physical labor: splitting rails, piloting river boats, farming, whatever... He was the quintessential American Midwest Frontiersman.
And then, even when he started getting into practicing law and politics, he became something of a perennial loser. People enjoyed his story-telling ability and sense of humor (these were some of most consistent compliments of Lincoln, throughout his lifetime), but they didn't vote for him very consistently. He lost numerous local and state elections -- only succeeding in serving one term in the United States House of Representatives before being elected President. And even when he was nominated to head the Republican campaign in 1860, he was generally considered to be only the 3rd- or 4th-best candidate among the Republicans (they say Lincoln managed to capture the nomination by being the second-favorite of everyone, with little to create objections among the voters, when the other factions stuck stubbornly to their favorite candidates). He barely won the national election to the Presidency (because the South was united against his party's platform declaring that the spread of slavery into new territories must be stopped), and within months of being elected, roughly a third of the states seceeded from the Union (declaring themselves to be an independent country). And all of this was before he got elected!
Truly, Abraham Lincoln was intimately acquainted with hardship and difficulty.
But one of the adjectives most frequently used to describe Lincoln in "Team of Rivals" is magnanimous. Lincoln was gracious towards allies and antagonists alike. He dealt well with disappointments, defeats, and divisive personalities. He listened well, even when others were very caustic toward him. He had a firm personal policy against writing letters in a state of anger. He was a good and gracious loser. He exhibited extraordinary humility, but he rarely allowed himself to be swayed from his firm convictions.
It was ironic -- though appropriate -- that Lincoln was President during the time of the American Civil War.
The whole country was being torn apart by opinionated, stubborn, prideful factions. Not just the slave-holding states in the Deep South. There were also the "Border States" (like Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) who allowed for slavery but didn't want to secede from the Union and slave-holding states who only reluctantly joined the secession out of solidarity for their Southern brethren. And even among the "unified" Northern states -- even among the Republican party -- there were vast differences of opinion. Between the former members of the Whig Party and the former members of the Democratic Party (who had been united into the Republican Party because of their opposition to slavery). Between anti-immigration Americans (particularly set against Irish and German Catholics) and the immigrant populations themselves. Between radical abolitionists (who saw the abolition of slavery as the main objective of the Civil War) and moderate Unionists (who didn't really care about slavery, particularly out of deference to the Border States, but who felt that the preservation of the Union was the most important goal of the war). So as he prepared to take office in 1860-1861, Lincoln formed his cabinet from among representatives of all these various factions. And then, throughout the rest of his Presidency, Lincoln spent his time maintaining the delicate balance in his coalition and leading the country through its perilous period of coming of age.
Lincoln was truly a fascinating person. I think I'd like to be like Abraham Lincoln "when I grow up." Not necessarily becoming a President (or a politician of any kind) -- but someone fighting extremism, practicing grace and magnanimity, humbly following my convictions, and leading well.