Pity the Poor Rich

When my son was born we were living below the poverty level. I’m bragging because it was more or less intentional. I grew up lower middle-class (After my father left when I was 13 my mother went back to work as a teacher and raised me with no child support.) Currently my wife and I are middle to upper middle-class. When she wants to buy something that before our changed circumstances would have given me grief which I would pass on to her I now say, “No problem, we’re rich.” which she hates to hear me say.

Am I happier “rich” than poor? Not at all, in fact, I believe the years we lived below the poverty level were the happiest of my life. I believe the reason was that I was doing meaningful things: raising food for my family, cutting, splitting and carrying wood to keep us warm, making do on a shoe-string, fixing things that broke. I had occasional part-time jobs during that period but as a bartender, for example, making a good drink or making a customer laugh or getting a big tip did not provide much satisfaction. Earning enough money to pay for utilities, insurance and the like was necessary but didn’t have the same instant payback in satisfaction over an accomplishment as work around the farm had. Getting through a very busy shift in which I was so busy the time went by in a blur was satisfying, doing a good job perhaps better than most others could have done it, felt good; but so much of the job was, well, just a job, whereas fixing a leaking water pipe, rebuilding the mower carburetor, raising, slaughtering, and butchering the beef that would feed the family for a year, growing, harvesting, canning, pickling, freezing and otherwise storing enough vegetables and fruit to feed the family for a year; ahh, nothing I did before or have done since provided that kind of satisfaction.

The difference now? Someone comes and picks up my riding mower to perform annual maintenance and to fix anything that breaks. There is no pride in that. I tell myself I am providing work for others; my financial good fortune is trickling down and that’s a good thing, isn’t it? It’s good for the economy, right? Plumbing was my least favorite home maintenance job but I did it and though I hated squirming around in the crawl spaces under our house and hated it even more when I turned on the water and found that one of the joints I had soldered had a leak and I would have to drain the water and dry the pipe before I could try again; but when the joints were good I came close to doing cartwheels. Now we call a plumber.

I was healthier when we heated with wood. It was our only source of heat for 20 years. Carrying half a dozen armloads of wood in every day in the winter kept me fit during the time of year when there wasn’t a lot of exercise. We still have the stoves and a woodshed full of wood but we also have an oil burner. I don’t have to carry in wood all winter so I hardly do it at all. Burning oil doesn’t make me feel good but, what the hell, I’m rich. Do you think that is an excuse for lazy?

Perhaps my years below the poverty level helped me avoid ethical problems studies have found with the rich. 

Integrity

The pundits say Greg Smith who left Goldman Sax in a very public way will have trouble getting another job on Wall Street. If I were in a position to hire him for a Wall Street firm, I'd be offering him a job right now. Following is part of the op-ed appearing in the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&ref=business
"It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief."

He is the kind of person Wall Street needs.

Raise My Taxes, Please!

Dear Senator Snowe,
I just read the "Snowe Report" and I agree that the LIHEAP (Low Income Energy Assistance Program) should be funded at a higher rate than in the budget and that deficit reduction is important though the juxtaposition of these two statements in your report is a bit ironic, don't you think? Every spending program (like LIHEAP) is important to some people somewhere which is why spending cuts are so difficult.
There is one thing that the majority of people all across the country and in Maine agree upon as a deficit reduction measure yet you don't mention it. Why? Why don't you support raising the income tax on those of us who are doing well? The answer I keep hearing is that it will kill jobs, that the wealthy who create jobs will not bother to make more money and thus create more jobs if they are taxed too much. That is a bogus answer. We have had tremendous job losses under the low tax on the wealthy for 8 years running which should prove that argument to be spurious.
Did you know that the highest income tax bracket was over 90% throughout the decade of the 50s and that was a time when a family could be raised on one income. Perhaps the reason middle class people could get by on one income in that decade was because there was little incentive for entrepreneurs, business owners, corporate boards, bankers and the like to make gross amounts of money so they paid better wages and charged less for their products and services. That explanation, at least, makes a lot more sense than saying that taxing incomes over $250,000 will stifle job creation.

Whitney Houston

Only in Tinsel Town would they do a spur of the moment tribute for an addict who just OD’d, This from my right wingnut friend.

Perhaps they were looking at the positive things about her.

but they wouldn’t do anything to help her while she was still alive.

I guess you know more about her life than I do.

This is one very messed up world we live in, but nowhere is it more is it as messed up as in Hollywood. So people want to rely on advice from those idiots on issues like global warming and who should run this country.

Ah, yes, those liberals in the entertainment world should be silenced. They should not be allowed to express their views. I mean really, Jane Fonda for flake of the year, right? She tried to stop the war in Vietnam. Maybe there should be a Constitutional amendment to stop liberals from expressing opinions. It would have to be just liberals because if you said actors or all entertainers were not allowed to voice their opinions or give money to candidates, that would affect people like Charleston Heston and goodness knows you want someone who has the weight of Moses behind him to speak out against gun control. And who was that actor who was governor of La La Land California, and then became president? He was quite a dashing figure in Tinsel Town, wasn’t he? Then there is Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Loretta Lynn and Tom Selleck whose voices and candidate support must not be hindered.

Amend Constitution

I read your latest blog entries, and do share much of your perspective when it comes to the country's current political situation. Where I diverge (I think) is when it comes to believing that there's a real distinction between the two major Parties, or at least enough of a difference to justify dutifully casting my vote and hoping the system itself will lean toward real change. John G. in Mass.

I’ll keep casting my vote and I will remain hopeful that the President, whoever that may be, and the Congress, whichever party dominates, will do their best for our country. I will hope that I will hear from the party leaders interesting and positive responses to ideas put forward by the opposition even though Boehner, Reid, Pelosi and McConnell have given me no reason for this hope.

However, since it is so difficult to remain hopeful, I have another hope. I hope we the people will rise up not in anger but in mass with positive solutions to some of the problems we face. This is still a democracy and we are still in charge. The Tea Party went the route of electing people they thought would fix things. I’m sure many Tea Party voters are disappointed with the results or lack thereof. Voting in politicians who spout the rhetoric we want to hear is not the solution because once in they find themselves in a system that resists change and soon they are seduced by the benefits of their position. Voting in “the right people” is not the solution. We must put pressure on the people in office to do our bidding. Corporations and rich people have undue influence because not enough of us are voicing our intent to vote the bums out. We are allowing money to talk. The Occupy Wall Street folks are on the right track. Now they need a mission which I think should be an amendment or two to the Constitution that will cut the influence of money in our government. Votes are what the politicians need. Republicans have gotten candidates to sign pledges to get votes. We should be getting candidates to sign pledges to put forward Constitutional amendments. Amendments are then put before the states and in our states we the people can overcome the money (I think).

PS: It is tempting to call for a new Constitutional Congress. I suspect those called to the CC would be the same people who are being influenced by money today and that the money would be there as well. Better to take one or two issues at a time, the simpler the better.

More politics

From Sis Chris: “I’m addicted right now I have to admit, to this real live soap opera about players for power, but more importantly, players for leadership in our country. Unfortunately power seems to be much more attractive than leadership to most politicians. Otherwise they could at least give each other credit for good decisions, goals achieved, and goals aimed for.”

Dear Sis, I agree and am always looking for politicians to find the good, or places they can agree with the “other side”. I thought Governor Daniels in the Republican response to the State of the Union address got off to a good start. There are Republicans who wish he were running for President. One interesting scenario in the Republican race is that they could go into the convention with still no candidate with enough votes to win the nomination on the first ballot. After that it could get very interesting as anything could happen.

I’m going to give a thumbs-up to Maine’s Governor for a leadership moment. In his first State of the State address he ended by saying that family abuse should not be tolerated, that 80% of the abusers were men, and that this was not a woman’s issue but a man’s issue and it was time for men to stand up against abuse. That is leadership. He plans to pursue the issue though government intervention but saying it passionately is the kind of leadership I’d like to see much more of from those who are in a position to get media attention—putting things in human terms, pushing we the people to be better rather than droning on about issues that are beyond our understanding like trillions of dollars.

What I found most powerful in the State of the Union address was the accomplishments of the past 3 years. As for his path ahead, it sounds good but I won’t be impressed until I see results. I have given credit to two Republicans and withheld positive judgment of the President’s speech which may make me sound like a Republican. In fact, I was once and would be again if the party did what they say they believe in—less government (why do Republicans try to legislate morality?); uphold the Constitution (fine, stop trying to get religion into government.) spend less (Every Republican President in recent times has expanded government and increased the national debt.). I’m proud of our President and will vote for him but if a Republican wins, I will be supportive of my president.

A Republican guest on a liberal television show repeatedly referred to the President as “your president” until the host finally said, “I thought he was our president.” Good on him as you say in New Zealand.

Politics

Politics from my sister in New Zealand

“He(Gingrich) knows how to deflect a negative against him back onto the projector as proven by his stern reprimand of John King at the beginning of the CNN debate.”

Yeah, that was classic Republican-right shoot-the-messenger and it seems to work very well for them.

“I am dismayed by voting statistics that say married women have rallied behind Gingrich.” My mother, a staunch Republican, said of Rockefeller, a Democrat, when he was running for president 50 odd years ago that she could never vote for someone who was divorced reasoning that if they couldn’t run a marriage they couldn’t run a country. It didn’t matter several years later when she voted for divorced Republican Ronald Regan.

I watch the Fox news channel occasionally to try to understand where those folks are coming from. The most recent rant seems to be how unfair the “liberal media” was in their attacks on Gingrich when they gave Clinton and Edwards a free pass on their extramarital affairs. Apparently the Murdoch Media (FOX) doesn’t watch Liberal Media because it was on “Liberal Media” that I got more information about Clinton’s blow job and Edwards’s affair than I cared to hear. If the Liberal Media was so over the top attacking Newt, you would think they would have brought up the South Carolina governor’s lying and affair with the woman in South America. If they did, I missed it. I’m betting FOX would have made something of it if the governor and Newt were Democrats.

“Personally I cannot stand Sarah Palin being inserted into the conversation, as if she has any influence.”

Ah, ha, you are watching Fox because the only place I ever see Palin these days is on Fox where she said: “If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going I’d vote for Newt and I would want this to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates because we know the mistake made in our country four years ago was having a candidate that was not vetted…” I guess Palin wasn’t paying attention to the Democratic primaries and the debates between Obama and Clinton and the close scrutiny of Obama by the “liberal media” and the Murdoch Media. Of course, she wouldn’t have been paying attention then because that was before she was picked as Republican VP candidate and she was much too involved in her job as Governor of Alaska, a job she loved so much she quite mid-term. (For any who don’t know me, that last sentence is meant to drip with sarcasm.)

Mort Media here says Newt must like quitters as he told CNN “I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I’m president…” Like what, Newt, Secretary of State?

“I would sure like to know your opinion about this election process to date.”

Well, Sis Chris, I think we have more problems than any president can fix without making a lot of people unhappy. I think that we, the citizens of the U.S., have come to the place that someone said of our Constitution 200 years ago that when we figured out we could vote for our self-interest our system of government would fail. We don’t seem to have a long view. Rich people seem to think that they can hold onto all the money and somehow the economy will thrive even though the vast majority doesn’t have buying power. Henry Ford paid his workers good wages so they could buy his cars. Smart.

We are afraid to make a transition to a different source of energy even though the current source is killing us, damaging the world we live in, contributing to our national debt and making us vulnerable to foreign powers. We have a political system that is so divisive it is unlikely any leader no matter how extraordinary he or she might be has little chance of making positive change. There is a part of me that thinks one of the Republican candidates as president might not be such a bad thing as they would not fix the problem and could then take the Republican nonsense down in flames two years later and then again two years after that but then a better part of me holds out hope that four more years of Obama might give him a chance to turn things around.

This is a difficult time to be a caring U.S. citizen with a long view.

Kodak and HP in trouble

Kodak and Hewlett Packard are in trouble because they don’t care about their customers. Their leadership is focusing on investors and profit—money rather than people. I say this because they both really piss me off. The first digital camera I got was a Kodak. I was able to download the pictures easily into my computer. Each picture was a file that I could open with several programs. I could copy, delete it, send it in an email. That camera belonged to my boss so when I left the job I got another Kodak camera but what a difference. I couldn’t find the files easily. Everything was tied up in something Kodak wanted me to do. A few years later my daughter sent me some CDs of pictures she had taken and put on a Kodak CD. These got me even more entangled with Kodak. I was unable to send any of these pictures without using some Kodak program. To make matters worse in the process of trying to do what I wanted to do Kodak got into my computer and started sending me unwanted messages each one pissing me off more.

HP is doing the same thing. I got a printer. It is hardware for Gods sake. I don’t want my hardware sending me messages telling me how to do things I have no interest in doing and then, whenever I change a cartridge, they tell me to waste a piece of paper to “align” the cartridge which also uses some of the ink in the cartridge all of which—say it with me now—pisses me off.

The good news is that these two companies are in trouble. Unfortunately the executives who got them in trouble made lots of money, will make more and will probably be hired by some other company at a grossly high salary.

Additional good news there are companies run by people who care about their customers and realize that the best way to serve investors is to serve customers, to focus on customers’ needs.

The bad news is that there are so many people in industry and government who haven’t an empathetic bone in their head.

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).”

Political change

My sister, Christie, living in New Zealand asks “In my whole lifetime and I am fairly sure in your whole lifetime, no change has been made. We are doomed to a mediocre world when we could have so much more. Why can’t we live in a perfect world?”
Dear Chris, There has been a lot of change during my lifetime. I was born at the end of the great depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt was president. He had instituted many programs to bring the country out of the depression and regulations to keep it from happening again. The 1950s was a decade of good times as depicted in television shows like Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It to Beaver—the good old days when one wage-earner could support a family. Interestingly, and I think it is related, income of more than $1.3 million was taxed at over 90%. In other words, someone earning $2.3 million only got to keep less than $100,000 of that last million. What would be the incentive to make more than $1.3 million if you could only keep $100,000? This question is usually asked with the assumption the high wage-earners are those who create wealth by creating more businesses, more employment etc. That’s not the way it actually works, however, as we see today in the multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses of CEOs of individual companies.
Let’s look at a very public business owning a sports franchise like the New York Yankees. The owners of sports teams don’t go out and create new teams. They may build a new stadium (or get the local government to build one for them) but the business is largely the expenses of paying team members, paying the people who sell hot dogs and the like. The income side is from ticket sales, sale of broadcast rights and advertising. If the owner had to pay really high taxes on really high income thus taking away his incentive to make gross amounts of money; he would have no incentive to keep salaries low either to players or other workers, no incentive to raise ticket prices. In fact the tax would have the exact opposite effect. Why raise ticket prices and why not pay higher wages and bonuses? Star athletes would have little incentive to hold out for an outrageous salary making it likely the other athletes on the team would get higher salaries. Now we have more people with a high enough wage to support a family. Isn’t that what family values are all about?
The change from the 50s has been gradual, wealthy people exerting more and more influence on politicians. I remember when Congress removed restrictions on banks allowing them to get into all sorts of other businesses; just one of many changes from the regulations that FDR put in place to keep the country from going into another depression. Reagan did the major drop in taxes for the rich which has created the super-rich who can exert even more influence on our political system.
You want a change away from rule by the greedy? It will come. It will get worse before it gets better but it will come.

I’m reading The Story of Civilization by Will and Arial Durant, 11 volumes averaging about 1,000 pages each. I read the last two first Rousseau and Revolution and The Age of Napoleon before beginning at the beginning. I’m about to finish volume IV now, six down and five to go. I admit to being proud of my accomplishment but it is not a chore. I’m having trouble putting them down (I’m also having trouble holding them up as they are heavy.) Every large society has gone through changes from caring about the people to focus on wealth and the power of the wealthy over the rest of society. Greed is really interesting, much like a disease. People who have it can’t get enough. They think that more—more money, more power, more things—will bring happiness yet when they get more they think they are happy yet a hunger for more persists. Rather than consider the possibility that the more they have been chasing is like the donkey chasing the carrot suspended in front of him on a stick tied to his back, they keep chasing the carrot rather than looking around to see if perhaps there is something other than money and power that would bring them contentment.
Obama did bring change. He brought us back from the brink of a depression. The loudest voices are those of the greedy who override voices of reason. Change takes time. We are a society of the instant—no patience, no foresight.
As for a perfect world, it may exist right now waiting for us to perceive it. Would a video game be perfect if everything went along easily? Would chess be fun is the opponent always made the moves you wanted? Perhaps all we need to live in a perfect world is the ability to accept this world as it is and play the game it presents to the best of our ability without unrealistic expectations.

Best Christmas present ever

When someone accompanies their gift with “It’s the thought that counts” it probably means not much thought went into the gift. Here is a gift idea I have used with wonderful responses; write a letter. You don’t have to be a great writer to give this gift because it isn’t the words that count but the thought. It works in all situations. How do I give my wife a present that was purchased with money that was ours? What do you give to someone who has everything? There is only one gift that is absolutely unique, that no one else can give; the gift of yourself, your time and thought. Here are some thoughts that might prove helpful.
1. I’m going to say it again. It is the thought that counts so start thinking about the person. Make a note to yourself if necessary to think about the person perhaps while driving or doing the dishes or some other activity when your mind has free run.
2. The most difficult part of writing is the first few words. Take pen and paper in hand or open a blank page in your word processor, write or type “Dear ______”. You are already thinking about the person whose name you put down. You may sit and stare at the page for awhile. If nothing comes, put it aside and do some random thinking but be sure you come back to the page. Put down “I (love, admire, respect, enjoy) you” if nothing else comes. Think about that for a bit. Why do you have feelings for this person? When did the feelings begin? (eg “I remember the day you were born…” and carry on from there.)
3. Recall some time you spent together (eg “Remember that time you borrowed my mower and forgot to return it.” No, no, no. Keep it positive. “I was just thinking about the time your leaves blew into my yard and you raked my yard for me. You really didn’t have to do that. I feel fortunate to have you as a neighbor.”)
4. When you have finished pretend you are the recipient and read it over. If there are any parts that don’t make you feel happy to have received in this letter, fix them. Hardest thing for parents writing to their children is to try not to ‘help’ them become better people. All of my letters from my father devolved into lectures. I wanted his love. I wanted him to know me, to respect me, to accept me, to care about me. I don’t think I was much different than anyone else in what I wanted. If you express love in your letter, your gift will be greatly appreciated.
Good luck. I’ve got some letters to work on.

birthers

A friend of mine thought the following was “priceless”:
Governor Mike Huckabee said, “If we want to keep our Nation’s secrets ‘SECRET’ … store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate.”
I replied:
That is priceless. I thought Huckabee was smarter than that so it's good to know this stuff. Not to worry, I know he was making a joke and that he is smart enough to know that the President was born in the US and has shown his birth certificate at least as many times as he has and that his college transcripts are at least as public as his but this humor panders to those foolish enough to believe the transcripts and birth certificate are less than genuine. Those people, and, unfortunately, there are even some in Congress, should have their driver's licenses and passports revoked. Let them try to get them back without a birth certificate.
PS The President has a valid passport and drivers license though I don't think he has to show them anymore.

Hate to pay taxes? They have been around in various forms since the beginning of civilization. Those who point to a time when there were no taxes in the U.S are pointing to the beginning of the federal income tax. People have hated to pay taxes, tithes, duties, dues and the like to those in power (church, state, lord of the manor, etc.) also since the beginning of civilization.
There was a time when I hated to pay taxes. I would rail in frustration, “I’m working the first four months of the year for the government!” I got so worked up that I did something about it. I got my income tax burden down to nearly nothing. Steve Forbes, take note, here is how you can stop paying income tax. It’s really fairly simple and I found it very invigorating. They don’t tax income if you don’t have any. Of course in Mr. Forbes case he would have to give away about half a billion that is earning him income without his having to work for it but it would still be easier than being president which he has tried to do twice.
I no longer hate paying taxes though I’m now paying more than ever before. I’m paying more because my income is bigger but I’m still able to keep the taxes at a reasonable level by giving away some of my income. It feels good to be able to help others and to help with projects people are doing to protect or improve our environment. As for the taxes? I just gave myself an attitude change. Rather than feel bummed out about having Uncle Sam’s hand in my pocket I now feel good that I can be a part of all the good the country I love is able to do. Oh yeah, I can point to things my country is doing that I don’t think are good. The last “good war” (one I feel we were compelled to enter) was WWII. I also think there are things the federal government messes in that local governments and citizens could do better but if I get focused on the negative, I’ll loose my good feeling about paying taxes.

Boehnercare

The Democrats need top stop trying to be reasonable, that is to apply reason. They need some catchy phrases. Take lessons from the conservatives and dismiss any reporting that doesn’t agree with your agenda as the Don’t-confuse-me-with-facts media. The Republicans say they want to overturn the health reform legislation which they label as Obamacare. Do they really want to go back to the way it was before “Obamacare”? How many years have both Democrats and Republicans been proclaiming the need for change? For goodness sake Democrats get on television and radio demanding Boehnercare!