The Dreaded Resealable Vinyl Sleeves

If you’ve done any record shopping at all, you’ve surely noticed that most used records are protected by a transparent record sleeve. Perhaps not the dozens of ring-worn copies of B.J. Thomas, Barbara Streisand and Barry Manilow, but any record worth more than $10 is likely covered in some fashion (and please note that I’m not knocking any of those artists – it’s just that their records are, well…plentiful).

In most stores, records are stored in a certain way:

1)      The records themselves are front-facing for ease of flipping.

2)      They are housed in plastic outer sleeves whose open ends are pointed towards the album cover openings (apparently called a “cover mouth.” I just learned something!).

3)      The inner sleeves that house the record itself are also pointed toward the cover mouth, allowing would-be buyers to extract the vinyl record without any unnecessary steps.

Some albums don’t play nice with this storage – Elton John’s Honky Chateau comes to mind – but for most part, this type of format works well, and as a guy who buys a fair number of records each year, I’ve grown accustomed to this protocol.

But more and more lately, I’ve had the misfortune of perusing used records that are housed in resealable sleeves, the kind that fold over and adhere like a Post-It note, leaving the album cover completely encased – even the opening that houses the inner sleeve and record. This obviously makes checking the record quality tedious, because I have to peel back the sticky fold of the outer sleeve to extract the record, and if I’m thumbing through a couple hundred items, it makes for a cumbersome visit and an unhappy camper.

Some stores go to even greater lengths to spoil my record-buying outing, turning a potential customer into a sworn enemy. Outside of Phoenix, one particular establishment (who shall remain nameless) turns a record quality check into about a minute-long ordeal on the front end, and then another minute-long ordeal on the back end. To wit:

1)      The records are stored in resealable sleeves. My happy disposition is already marred.

2)      These resealable sleeves are pointed north so that the “cover mouth” isn’t exposed even after opening the outer sleeve. Because of this, the album cover has to be completely extracted from the outer sleeve.  Now I’m starting to mutter a few obscenities.

3)      This store takes things a step further: the inner sleeve is also pointing north, meaning I can’t take out the vinyl without first slipping the entire inner sleeve out of the record cover. By this point I’m giving the stink eye to the poor clerk at the cash register, and she probably has nothing to do with this madness!

4)      Once the record is freed from this insanity, I hold it between my hands and tilt it from side to side. And wouldn’t you know it? This particular copy of Working Class Dog by Rick Springfield is marked up beyond any reasonable collector’s threshold, and by this point I’m fuming, because…

5)      I now have to reverse the process to put the album back the way I found it!

I certainly wasn’t going to go through this procedure again and again. I walked out empty-handed and spent my money elsewhere.

I’ve been told by my friend and podcast partner Chris that if a store is going to use resealable sleeves, an accurate grade of the record should be marked on a sticker so that the buyer knows what he or she is getting. But even then I’m skeptical, because I want to see what I’m buying, and not every grading system is consistent.

Sure, if you own a record store and have a mint copy of Prince’s Black Album, go ahead – put it inside a resealable sleeve. In fact, put it in a safe and just display a photo of the record for interested parties! But for most merchandise in the $10 to $250 range, please do us all a favor and stick to the protocols that make record-buying a joyful experience.

Radical Amazement OR Living Every Day as if it's Your First

You may have heard of Suleika Jaouad, a musician and best-selling author of Between Two Kingdom’s, but she might be even better known as the wife of fellow musician John Baptiste. That’s how I discovered her. Together they were featured in the 2023 documentary, American Symphony, which focuses on Baptiste’s musical career as well as his wife’s struggles with leukemia.

Jaouad has a new book called The Book of Alchemy: A Creative Practice for an Inspired Life, which includes contributions from several musicians, writers, activists and actors. I haven’t yet read the book, but I was taken with something that Jaouad said recently on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert as part of her promotional tour. After being diagnosed with her third bout of leukemia last year, her doctor advised her to live every day as if it were her last, a common refrain when someone is faced with a terrible illness.

The trouble, Jaouad claims, is that it’s terrible advice.

I encourage you to watch the clip, but Jaouad explains, “It is exhausting to try to make every family dinner as meaningful as possible and to carpe diem the crap out of every moment.”

So what’s a better way to look at life when faced with a deadly illness, or a way to look at life in general?

She goes on, “Instead I’ve had to shift to a gentler mindset, and I am trying to live every day as if it’s my first. To wake up with that sense of pure uninhibited creative freedom, that sense of wonder and curiosity that a little kid might.”

We would all do well to apply Jaouad’s advice, and we certainly needn’t be faced with cancer to do so.

By some stroke of luck, a few days before seeing the above video clip, I attended a lecture at Elmhurst University, during which Rabbi Steven Bob celebrated the life and teachings of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, a prominent theologian and author in the 20th century. In Heschel’s 1951 book, Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion, he discusses a concept that aligns very much with Jaouad’s: radical amazement. It’s this concept that Rabbi Bob highlighted in his lecture.  

Heschel writes, “Human beings must stand in radical amazement that they exist at all…to be so in awe of every aspect of the world and its creator that one cannot help but do one’s part to make it the best it can be.”

Upon learning Heschel’s phrase and – just a few days later – having it reinforced by Jaouad (in spirit, if not in exact words), this idea of radical amazement has been foremost on my mind. I’ve caught myself several times a day actively being in awe of something that might otherwise be categorized as mundane. A flower. The sky. My wife’s smile. A warm bed. A heartfelt laugh. A hardy meal. My body’s movements. There is no shortage of things to be inspired by, and tapping into the beauty of the mundane is a large part of what attracted me to Judaism in the first place, as it’s largely a religion of elevating what might be considered normal everyday activities into something more, something spiritual, something meaningful.

Of course, one doesn’t have to be Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or anything else to consider the philosophy of radical amazement. One just needs to be human. There are loads of wonderful articles and videos online to spur you on your journey to embracing the wonder of life. I’m going to dig deeper into this concept, and I suspect that starting with the books of Heschel and Jaouad might be great places to start. If you find another great source, let me know. Good luck with your journey.

Smartphone Addiction

A while back I read an essay by August Lamm, whose journey from social media influencer to ditching her smart phone struck a chord with a lot of people, including a book publisher. The plan was to write a short pamphlet called “You Don’t Need a Smartphone” and follow it up with a full-length book. By this point, Lamm was using a flip-phone, but that didn’t stop the publishing team from sending massive amounts of emails, texts, calls and Google invites about Zoom meetings, deadlines, Google docs, press releases, social media strategies, and the like. Lamm explains it far better than I do – she’s an excellent writer – but the upshot was that her efforts to write about downgrading and reclaiming her life was leading her to do the exact opposite; she was glued to an electronic device at all times, stressed out and not sleeping.

Ultimately, the pamphlet did get published, and I was intrigued enough with the topic to buy a copy, not because I feel like my smartphone has taken over my life, but because I wondered how she advised people on issues like how to enter sporting events or concerts without a phone, or how to pay bills or send people money? It’s no secret that a lot of things we used to do without smartphones are becoming increasingly reliant on smartphones.

Which is the point, says Lamm. It’s not an issue of self-control. Smartphones are designed to keep us on them, and there are powerful entities making sure that you do. But “screentime is not your time,” Lamm writes. “It’s an aggregate of other people’s time – their words and images, their pleas and ploys.”

My kids and I were some of the last people I knew to own a flip phone. I remember people making fun of me about it, asking me about how I could leave home without a phone. “I’m going shopping at Target,” I’d say. “Who do I need to talk to?” I finally acquiesced when familial logistics problems arose, and flip phones became useful tools in the interest of family harmony. Around three or four years later we purchased our first smartphones, which means I’ve owned a smartphone for less than twenty percent of my life, but that hasn’t stopped me from fully integrating it into my daily activity. And I’m not immune to picking up my phone to do one specific task, only to see that I’ve received a text message, and after checking the text completely forgetting why I picked up my phone in the first place. 

That’s a big part of the problem, says Lamm. The smartphone has combined dozens and dozens of everyday activities into one convenient package. Lamm is a big believer in disambiguation, restoring single-purpose devices into one’s life. Want to listen to music? Grab an old iPod, or better yet, play a CD or record (I still do!). Want to add some numbers? Get out the old calculator you left in your drawer a dozen years ago. Want to make a phone call? Get out your flip phone. Want to start dating? Join a club and socialize. Want to drive somewhere? Get out a map. Hell, I spent 45 years driving from place to place without the use of Google Maps, but I’ll be darned if it didn’t take just six months or so for me to become addicted to this tool.

“Precisely,” I can hear Lamm saying to me.

Lamm says that once she downgraded and broke the cycle of relying on her smartphone, a funny thing happened: she got her time back. She started doing things with more intent. Her book-reading increased, and sometimes she even started doing…nothing. Just being and not worrying about every minute of her day being productive. She writes, “As long as you are experiencing this time more vividly than you did screentime, you are reaping the benefits. Be bored. Be annoyed. At least you’re feeling something.”

Here's my quick take: smartphones are this grand experiment that we humans decided to enter into whole-hog without really understanding the repercussions (a common human trait), and I think it’s important that Lamm and others are discussing the issue of smartphone addiction, particularly for young people who’ve never known life without one. Her message has resonated with a lot of users.

As for me, I find that separating myself from my phone isn’t all that difficult for two big reasons: I don’t do social media or play games on my phone, and those to me are the biggest culprits of smartphone addiction. After all, these apps are designed to be addictive, and they lead to an incredible waste of time. And sure, I’ve wasted many hours on my phone, but most of the time I’m on it to do something specific, which is really what all of us should be striving for – do live with intent.

Reading Lamm’s pamphlet has inspired me to do two things: keep my phone out of my bedroom and keep it out of reach when I’m watching a movie or TV.  That will go a long way to keeping me engaged with what I’m doing.

For those who feel like their relationship with their phone has crossed a line, Lamm’s pamphlet may provide a roadmap for how to untangle oneself from this device. I wish her huge success with the publication, and I really do hope that one day she can write the book without it sucking her back into the world of electronics.

Using a Donor Advised Fund (DAF) to offset a Roth IRA Conversion

It’s been a while since I’ve wrote out finances, so let’s dig in, and let me preface this by saying that I am not a financial professional; please consult a professional (as I did) before you embark on any significant tax-saving strategies.

Okay, with that out of the way, let’s summarize two things: one, I think charitable giving is important, as I’ve written about before in several different essays. If you have the ability to help others and you’re currently not doing so, or if you wonder if you could be doing more, please consider reading my blogs on this topic, and in particular read about Peter Singer and his philosophy about giving money wisely.

Two, I’d like to have as much retirement income in tax-free accounts as possible - in other words, Roth accounts. I’m happy to pay taxes and contribute to the United States every year, but I also want to do intelligent and legal things to mitigate the tax I pay. Rich people do it, so I figure my family should take advantage of the same strategies when possible.

Now, you’re legally allowed to transfer money from a pre-tax retirement account like a traditional IRA or a 401k into a Roth IRA, but it’s a taxable event, and paying a big extra chunk in taxes is prohibitive most of the time. So even though I want to have as much of our retirement savings in a ROTH IRA so that we can withdraw money tax-free in our retirement, I’m not willing to do so if it means paying taxes now.

With that in mind, I’d like to discuss a method of satisfying both desires - giving to charity and moving money into a Roth IRA - without increasing your taxes.

In 2022 I learned about Donor Advised Funds (DAFs), a device that allows you to move more than one year’s worth of charitable giving into a fund for future distribution. The idea is that if you are able to contribute several year’s worth of charitable giving into a DAF in one calendar year, then you can then itemize the deduction on your taxes. This became especially important a few years ago in states like Illinois with high state and property taxes, because after the SALT tax deduction was enacted, these deductions were capped at $10K. So in 2022, when the standard deduction was $25, 900, it required an addition $15,900 of charitable giving before you could benefit from itemizing your deductions. In 2024 the standard deduction is up to $29,200, so it takes nearly $20K of charitable giving to begin to itemize your deductions.

Now, I’m aware that we should give to give, not to reap financial benefits. I get it. But we can give a whole lot more if we do get a deduction, which is why charitable deductions are allowed in the first place - to spur charitable giving.

For argument’s sake, let’s say you have $100K in a brokerage account somewhere and you like to donate $20K a year to charities (and I recognize that these numbers might be pie-in-the-sky - I’m just trying to make it simple). Depending on your income (there are restrictions, so do your homework) you could take $100K from your traditional IRA or 401K and transfer it to a Roth IRA, and then offset the tax implications for this event by moving $100K from your brokerage account into a Donor Advised Fund. The two events should be close to a wash, and you’ll wind up paying around the same tax as you did last year. And now you have five-year’s worth of charitable giving ready to go!

Even better, you can move appreciated assets into the DAF tax free, thereby avoiding capital gains on that amount. And wait, there’s more! The assets you have in the DAF can grow over time, allowing you to give even more money to your favorite charities!

Pretty slick, eh? To me, it’s a no-brainer, and I’m surprised that this strategy isn’t discussed more on-the financial pages I read.

I studied this method for weeks, wondering if I was missing something, and finally bit the bullet and emailed a financial advisor who I hire from time to time for a flat fee (always a flat fee - never a percentage) and asked him about the above strategy. He wrote: “Love this strategy, we do it all the time. Yes, I approve everything you are planning as described in your email.” He then went on to explain a few specifics to be aware of that were helpful, so please do your homework and get the advice of a professional before you pull the trigger.

If you’re lucky enough to have some assets on-hand that you don’t need immediately and you believe in helping others, consider looking into this strategy. It’s a win win win win.

All Work and No Play

I read Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s newsletter fairly frequently, and without fail he has something insightful to offer (he’s as smart and as good a writer as he was at playing basketball, which seems a little unfair), often attributing his insight to his old UCLA basketball coach, John Wooden. A few months ago, Jabbar quoted Wooden: “Do not let making a living prevent you from making a life,” and Jabbar expanded on this teaching, saying, “It’s not just about taking more time off work to spend with friends and family, it’s also about how we lie to ourselves and others about our priorities. And how those lies prevent us from making a truly fulfilling life.”

Weighty stuff, that!

I’ve often professed that people are what they do, not what they say. It matters not if you say, “My children are the most important things in my life” if you rarely talk to, write to, visit or even think about them. It may be true that they hold a place in your heart, and I don’t want to diminish that, but the reality is that for many of us, we spend more time watching sports than we do with family, we spend more time working unnecessarily than we do pursuing friendships, and we spend more time scrolling through social media than we do pursuing a meaningful task. The time we spend doesn’t line up with what we claim to be most important in our lives.

Kareem goes on to comment on people who appear on reality shows and compete for money “for their family,” all the while spending more time away from family and begging for attention (like Elton John wanting to spend more time with family, and therefore embarking on a five-year farewell tour to prove it!). It’s a little harsh, but as Jabbar says, “People get married, buy houses, and put their kids through college without stranding themselves on an island or leaping forty feet into the water while grabbing a plastic flag.”

Wow. So how should we spend our time?

At the end of the movie Monty Python and the Meaning of Life, after 90 minutes of insane comedy sketches that include a grotesque live organ transplant and a large man vomiting profusely, the question of the meaning of life is finally answered: “Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.”

You could do worse! 

But my pithy response to life’s biggest mystery is this: “The meaning of life is to live life meaningfully.”

If what you’re doing at this moment has meaning, you’re on to something. If it doesn’t, stop doing it and move on to another activity. Most of our time should be spent doing things that coincide with what’s most important. I’ve never been inclined to squander away a day, but I’ve been known to throw away an hour here or an hour there in ways I never would have done twenty years ago. Which is silly, because I have less time in this life now than I had twenty years ago! I shouldn’t be squandering another minute.

Or does growing older give you permission to squander some time but somehow feel at peace with it?

If so, I’m not quite there yet.

Time to get cracking.