How to Love

How to Love

Most people who Google “how to love” are probably looking for some help in finding love, a person to love, or some understanding of feelings they have. If you have looked in the dictionary or around the web for a definition of the active verb “to love”, you have probably been frustrated. I hope to help alleviate your frustration.

“Love” is probably the most used and least understood active verb in any language and with good reason. It is inextricably braid together with feelings, emotions--often unbidden and uncontrollable. I am going to try to give you a definition of the verb to love that is on solid, unemotional ground and I am going to give you someone to practice on.

The foundation is unconditional acceptance. That is accepting a person as they are, without judgment. There will undoubtedly be things about that person you don’t understand and the more involved you become with a person the more you are likely to try to understand the things that mystify you but overall you must work toward acceptance. That is the foundation for romantic love, love of parents, siblings, offspring, neighbors and even enemies. There is one other love not mentioned in the previous sentence. When I was researching and thinking about love this last one was the last one I came to think about—amazing as it is the most important—and that is love of self.

So there you have it. All you have to do is work on unconditional acceptance of yourself. I’m not implying it will be easy though I really have no idea. I’m in my seventies and I can’t tell you just when I came to accept myself. I think I reached a reasonable level of acceptance in my early thirties and that I have gotten better over the years but I still have lapses when I do something that I then wish I hadn’t done. But the thing is, I can work on acceptance of myself and others and the more successful I am, the better I like myself and the better I like myself, the more others seem to like me and that is a very good feeling.

You can follow my thinking that came to the conclusion stated here in my umpublished book How to Improve Your Life and Save the World. (Click on "love" on my home page.)

Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party

[I have added a conservative response to this.]

The Tea Party raised the hopes of many though it soon morphed into a right wing social agenda leaving moderates who felt a need for change in the dust. Occupy Wall Street has raised the hopes of many but hope for what? The right wants to pit it against the Tea Party but I think the basis for both is the same. OWS’s lack of a clear agenda is both its strength and its weakness. Without an agenda each hopeful person can hope the agenda will align with their hopes and they grow evermore anxious to see “their” agenda articulated. Once an agenda is articulated there are bound to be many who will feel “that’s not my agenda”.
What brought about the TP and OWS is frustration and anger by many that our system is broken. We are all mad as hell and loosing patience. We blame it on the politicians and the lobbyists, the bankers and the stock brokers, greed and avarice. Our frustration is that in a democracy we the people are supposedly in charge—we are the boss, we can fire those who don’t do our bidding and yet when we fire incumbents, the replacements are little, if any better and often worse. The TP threw out the bums and gridlock in our government got even worse. OWS is focusing more on bankers and stock brokers and avarice but where will that focus lead? Some good was done by picketing a bank. Bank of America was picketed and responded by removing a recently added fee. This worked because there was a specific and easily understood goal and a clear target. The picketing drew enough media attention to get the bank to respond.
That is a great model for OWS—pick a specific and easily understood goal with a clear target and bring attention to it by getting media attention.
Example: A constitutional amendment putting some limits on congress is a possibility that both TP and OWS people could support. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate and the House of Representatives to start the amendment process. Clearly it would take a lot of pressure for Congress to make a vote that would limit them in any way but if the TP and OWS teamed up to get it done, I think it could happen. Both get a lot of media attention now, imagine the power if they joined forces on one issue. It could become a major campaign issue with candidates signing a pledge to vote for Amendment 28 if elected.
I rather like the idea of term limits and making it illegal for anyone who has served in congress to become a lobbyist. It would decrease the motivation for getting elected to become rich and, hopefully, increase candidates’ interest in moving our country forward. It would also free up a lot of the time now spent by our congresspeople on raising funds and campaigning for the next election, time they could put to good use by focusing on the job we sent them there to do. Or a similar idea from Warren Buffett. "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”
Cynic that I am I doubt this will happen simply because the OWS folks wouldn’t want to join an idea that came from the TP folks and visa versa. The Tea Party is and Occupy Wall Street likely will become as polarized as Congress.

FOLLOWING IS A REPEAT OF THE ABOVE WITH COMMENTS (in color) FROM MY CONSERVATIVE FRIEND. MY LIBERAL FRIEND HAS COMMENTED ELSEWHERE. My cynicism is well placed though my reason for it was overly optimistic.

The Tea Party raised the hopes of many though it soon morphed into a right wing social agenda leaving moderates who felt a need for change in the dust. Occupy Wall Street has raised the hopes of many but hope for what? The right wants to pit it against the Tea Party but I think the basis for both is the same. OWS’s lack of a clear agenda is both its strength and its weakness. How can the inability to articulate your position ever be interpreted as a strength? Without an agenda each hopeful person can hope the agenda will align with their hopes and they grow evermore anxious to see “their” agenda articulated. Once an agenda is articulated there are bound to be many who will feel “that’s not my agenda”.

What brought about the TP and OWS is frustration and anger by many that our system is broken. We are all mad as hell and loosing patience. We blame it on the politicians and the lobbyists, the bankers and the stock brokers, greed and avarice. Our frustration is that in a democracy we the people are supposedly in charge Not the way it works, not even the way it’s designed to work … we elect people who are in charge. —we are the boss, we can fire those who don’t do our bidding and yet when we fire incumbents, the replacements are little, if any better and often worse

. Obviously, we’re not making good choices, but in this case you haven’t given the new guys time to do much of anything … first you need to give them a clear majority in both houses. The TP threw out the bums and gridlock in our government got even worse. Nothing could be worse than the one-party system we had for two years starting in early 2009. OWS is focusing more on bankers and stock brokers and avarice but where will that focus lead? Some good was done by picketing a bank. Bank of America was picketed and responded by removing a recently added fee. This worked because there was a specific and easily understood goal and a clear target. The picketing drew enough media attention to get the bank to respond. Methinks that you give them some undeserved credit relative to overturning the monthly charges on debit cards.

That is a great model for OWS—pick a specific and easily understood goal with a clear target and bring attention to it by getting media attention.

Example: A constitutional amendment putting some limits on congress is a possibility that both TP and OWS people could support. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate and the House of Representatives to start the amendment process. Therein lies the problem and a bunch of kids sleeping in tens on Public Square aren’t the way to address it. Clearly it would take a lot of pressure for Congress to make a vote that would limit them in any way but if the TP and OWS teamed up to get it done, Somehow I’m having difficulty getting my mind around the notion of a bunch of Ivy League liberals teaming up with a gang of red neck conservatives on anything. I think it could happen. Both get a lot of media attention now, the media has been and continues to do everything possible to completely ignore the TP. imagine the power if they joined forces on one issue. It could become a major campaign issue with candidates signing a pledge to vote for Amendment 28 if elected.

I rather like the idea of term limits (dream on) and making it illegal for anyone who has served in congress to become a lobbyist. Can’t happen any more than enforcing employment agreements that prohibit you from working in the same industry for a competitor … it’s restraint of trade and unconstitutional. However, Congress has passed laws limiting a retired bureaucrat’s ability to lobby his former co-workers for a brief window … it’s either 1 or 2 years. It would decrease the motivation for getting elected to become rich and, hopefully, increase candidates’ interest in moving our country forward. It would also free up a lot of the time now spent by our congresspeople on raising funds and campaigning for the next election, time they could put to good use by focusing on the job we sent them there to do. Did you read the piece I sent yesterday about elected officials trading on insider information on land purchases it was a transcript of something 60-Minutes ran on Sunday. Or a similar idea from Warren Buffett. "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.” And this is going to get passed in the Senate when?

Cynic that I am I doubt this will happen simply because the OWS folks wouldn’t want to join an idea that came from the TP folks and visa versa. The Tea Party is and Occupy Wall Street likely will become as polarized as Congress. They already are. We happen to have a vocal little band of Occupy Cleveland so I get some things that you never get to hear or see … they are remarkably disorganized … I can’t think of any single belief that they share with the TP. I love it when they talk about getting Congress to pass a law to get the rich to pay their fair share … don’t they know that Congress did that a long time ago … it’s called the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and that’s worked so well that guys earning as little as $110K got hit last year, but on a percentage basis old Warren paid less than his secretary.

I think we get too focused on buzz words and fuzzy political double talk. I do know that the media does a piss poor job of vetting candidates that they like and go into assassination mode on the ones they don’t like. I would like to believe that you’re right about the public being angry enough to get off its collective fanny, but I don’t see it. However, they did get mad enough at W to vote for Obama though in retrospect he was less qualified for the job than my Brittany Spaniel. Wish I could embrace one of the GOP candidates. By the way, what is so bad about a Mormon? I’m missing something there … not real excited about the guy, but certainly not over his religion.

Dear President Obama

Dear President Obama,
You need to take a lesson from Ross Perot and make up some simple charts to help us understand government economics.
1. Budgets are balanced by taking in more money and/or spending less.
2. Your government gets money by taxing income so there are two ways to increase revenue, raise taxes and/or raise income. Let’s look at the two ends of the spectrum super rich and those near or below the poverty level.
3. Last year the median income for the top executives of the top 200 corporations was $10.8 million. There is only so much these people can spend even if they eat in the fanciest restaurants, buy yachts and cars and extra houses. They invest the rest. Investment in businesses that create jobs is a good thing. The stock market is getting closer to the record highs before the recession so you would think there would be more jobs. That hasn’t happened. Clearly taking money away from the super rich is not going to hurt job growth. We should raise their taxes.
4. Those near or below the poverty level will spend any money they can get their hands on for necessities like food and shelter. Cynics might say they will spend it on frivolous things like flat screen televisions but whatever they spend it on, it becomes income for someone else and that income is taxed. Let’s say they bought the TV, the people who sold the TV got money, the people who stored the TV got money, the people who imported the TV (this would be an even better example if the TV were made in the USA) got money and all of those people had income on which they paid taxes thus more money came into the government helping keep our national debt from getting even larger.
5. Did the stimulus package work? Absolutely. Without it unemployment would have gone over 10% and we would have gone into a depression. While it wasn’t enough to bring down the unemployment figure, it did keep it from getting much worse.
6. We would all like to see the federal government spend less BUT we need to be careful we don’t make the recession worse by taking money out of the economy where people will spend it. When we take jobs away from teachers, firefighters, police, and others employed by our towns, states and the federal government we are adding to the unemployment problem. When we take money out of the hands of people who will spend it because they need to in order to live we are also decreasing tax revenue.
These are simple facts, Mr. President. Explain them to the people. Maybe even Congress will understand. My senators, even though they are moderate republicans, won’t listen to us. If we are going to vote reasonable people into office, we need your help, dare I say leadership?

Weed control or The Best Garden Tip Ever

Control of annual weeds in a garden is easy if you obey the ten day rule. Rake the seed bed before planting, not days before planting but just before planting. Mark your calendar to cultivate the rows in ten days. Chances are you won’t see any weeds and will wonder why you should be running the hoe along between the rows. Take your hoe and drag it along just barely below the surface then look at the hoe. You should see a lot of white or light colored threads. These are weeds that have only had time to put up a slender stem and down an equally slender root. In a couple of more days the root will branch out and start to take hold of soil. Once it does that it will be more difficult to pull and when pulled either by hand or by hoe it quite likely will be able to hold onto enough soil to stay alive. The first ten day cultivation will kill 80% or more of the weeds that will be sprouting from seed.
That is the core of the ten day rule. As a vegetable farmer there have been times when that first cultivation was all that I got around to doing and yet I harvested a crop. Going back for cultivation after another ten days is certainly a good idea and getting down close and personal to complete the job by hand weeding in the row while thinning if necessary is always my goal but I want to emphasize that first ten day cultivation. I make it a higher priority than planting seeds. My first year with a market size garden I kept planting seeds because I obviously wouldn’t get a crop if I didn’t plant. At the end of the year I found there were several plantings that never reached the market because the weeds overwhelmed them. No sense planting something that won’t make it to market so now I make sure nothing I plant is lost to weeds—maybe lost to deer, or porcupines, or woodchucks (groundhogs), or mice, or crows, or turkeys but not weeds.
PS: Deer, porcupines and woodchucks are kept out of my gardens with electric fence. I got a barn cat that seems to be helping with the mice and for crows it is important that they not see me planting corn (I’m serious. Don’t leave any corn seed above ground and if crows do pull up your corn seedlings for the seed, plant deeper next year.) Turkeys did not bother me until last fall when they took a liking to lettuce and arugula. I’m covering these crops with row cover and trying to scare the turkeys with shots, shouts, and firecrackers in the hope they will take the hint that they are not welcome in the gardens. The jury is out on that one. I am reluctant to try putting up a high fence as they could fly over it.

Arizona killings

I have a logic question for you...
If I say "kill Sarah Palin" and then someone who never heard me say that does kill her, can I accurately state that I had nothing to do with it?

Using logic I would say that you would have to say it where it could not be heard by anyone who could pass the thought on to another who could pass it on to another who could pass it on to Kevin Bacon. Philosophically I would answer that you need to be careful when you shoot an arrow into the air. Mystically, ah, that is where it gets really interesting.
Did I ever tell you that in November 1996 I made an effort to locate my half sisters, three women I had not seen or had any word of for 25 years when they were ages 16, 14 and 10? I was unsuccessful. Within a week I received a letter from the middle sister who was living in New Zealand, as far away as you can get from Maine on this planet asking, “Hi! My name is Christie Mather and I am wondering if you are my lost brother?” If this is more significant than mere coincidence, then one might consider the possibility that any thought could have consequences especially if it is thought by many.
I hope you have been amusing yourself with the conjecturing about whether or not any good will come of the Arizona murders regarding rhetoric. First you have the “liberal left” suggesting that Palin’s targeting the Representative may have influenced the murder (ignoring the fact that targeting political races is common practice for both parties though the cross-hairs was unwisely suggestive). Then you have the “wing-nut right” and their pundits attacking the liberal left for capitalizing on the tragedy while doing the same thing themselves. How would the rhetoric go if Sarah Palin was shot? There can be no doubt that the wing-nuts would rant about how the left had killed her with their rhetoric while the left would attack with similar rants to those being used by the right today.
Those of us awash in the mire being sloshed back and forth between those who seem to be operating under some sort of hypocritical oath wonder, “Will it ever stop?” Sure, eventually. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime though I will continue to hope. I will continue to hope for civility, for acceptance of each other and our right to disagree without being disagreeable, for respect.
As I watched Bill O’Riley and six of his pundits tear into the liberal left and at one point putting up a picture of the New York Times building as a symbol of what’s wrong with our country I couldn’t help but wonder what his reaction would be if the building was blown up. My mystical side ought to be more careful. What if that thought went viral?

Congress convenes

Just for the record I'm hopeful that John Boehner and the Republican majority in the House will do some positive things. In Maine we have a Republican governor and both houses went Republican for the first time in quite awhile. There, too, I am hopeful. It is my attitude at the beginning of every administration no matter the party. I believe that people who run for office have the best intentions of the people of their state/country at heart and I bless them for their commitment and wish them well.
I confess that I don't see any good for the country in the House trying to overturn what Republicans are fond of calling Obama Care since it will get nowhere in the Senate and even if it did the President would veto it. It seems totally political which is what we hate most, isn't it? If they went after it piecemeal starting out by saying "we like these parts and will keep them" and then had an honest debate about the rest, I'd be impressed. I hope that is the approach they take. I'd also like to see them do a little horse trading like saying, "we'll accept a government program as an alternative as long as you Dems accept reining in lawsuits."

Healthcare in the Dark Ages

The following is quoted from The Age of Faith, Volume IV of The Story of Civilization by Will Durant (1949). I hope you find it as amusing as I did.
“Several important treatises, covering nearly all branches of medicine, have reached us from the School of Salerno [12th century]. One, by Archimatheus, prescribes the proper bedside manner: the physician must always regard the patient’s condition as grave, so that a fatal end may not disgrace him, and a cure may add another marvel to his fame; he should not flirt with the patient’s wife, daughter, or maidservant; and even if no medicine is necessary he should prescribe some harmless concoction, lest the patient think the treatment not worth the fee, and lest nature should seem to have healed the patient without the physician’s aid.” (p 998)
And for those who think history doesn’t repeat itself:
“Every city of any importance paid physicians to treat the poor without charge….In Christian Spain of the thirteenth century a physician was hired by the municipality to care for a specified part to the population; he made periodically a medical examination of each person in his territory, and gave each one advice according to his findings; he treated the poor in a public hospital, and was obliged to visit every sick person three times a month; all without charge…for these services the physician was exempted from taxes, and received an annual salary of twenty pounds, equivalent to some $4,000 today (1949).”