So, what now? Christmas and New Year celebrations are past, as is the celebration of Lori's 50th birthday. The Presidential inauguration is now history, likewise the 50th anniversary commemoration of "the day the music died" which looks back at the last concert by Buddy Holly, J.P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson and Richie Valens before dying in a plane crash nearby. Time has expired in the 43rd Superbowl, and even Bruce Springsteen's new album has been released, downloaded and played. What's left? What can a guy virtually drunk on big events look forward to now?
Well, there's spring, but given the forecast of 1-degree tonight and -1 tomorrow, changing seasons could be tough to imagine. Today is Groundhog Day and that could extend the super weekend excitement for a moment, but a furry rodent's climatic assessments have never really plugged me in. A new Susan Werner album should hit iTunes tomorrow, and new music from her is always welcome. But big events? Iconic celebrations? Easter feels a very long way off, as does Memorial Day. Sure, President's Day is just around the corner, but only bank employees and letter carriers are likely to get real charged by that anticipation.
And, of course, there is Valentine's Day. Hmmm. Valentine's Day. Now, that has some possibilities. Traditionally focused on romance, that, alone, sounds like a welcomed change of topic for this season of layoffs, bankruptcies, liquidations and foreclosures. Even the word, "Bailout", omnipresent and defining the cultural moment and mood, sounds demoralizing rather than encouraging. Why not, then, rally around a little respite of romantic planning and thinking and practice. Goodness knows we could benefit from a little more attention to the practices of wooing as opposed to our preoccupation with winning and crushing. A dozen roses and some fancy chocolates just might be good medicine for more than our intimate affections and relations.
What might happen if we devoted more attention to Valentines -- beyond the schmaltzy cards and heart-shaped candies? What if we expanded our attentions beyond just romance, in particular, to include love in general, and the skills and practices that nourish it? The newspaper could feature expert advice on healthy communication. Churches could preach about forgiveness. Schools could sharpen their attention to appreciating differences. The President could give a major policy speech on diplomatic relations. This could, in other words, become a national focus on developing and sustaining relationships of positive regard -- a kind of "Super Bowl of Loving".
Who am I kidding? A quick look at the crowded court dockets, global military conflicts, the Pentegon budget, and party-line votes in Congress makes it clear that no one really wants to talk about getting along -- let alone the discipline of learning how.
It was, though, fun to dream about even if only for a moment.
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Monday, February 2, 2009
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Following the Thread, part 2
When the moon hits your eyes
like a big pizza pie
That's Amore
When the world seems to shine
like you've had too much wine
That's Amore
When the stars make you drool
Just like pasta fazool
That's Amore
When you dance down the street
With a cloud at your feet
You're in love
When you walk in a dream
But you know you're not dreamin', signore
'scusa me, but you see, back in old Napoli,
That's Amore
(words and music by Harry Warren and Jack Brooks)
Is that really love -- drunken, drooling, dancing dreaminess? I'm in favor of such delight. Woozy romance has fallen rather out of favor in recent years -- maligned as the shaky, ephemeral foundation on which to build a genuine relationship. "Love," it is insisted, "is a choice, not an emotion." Fine. But even green leafy vegetables and high-fiber foods cooking can have a scent that attracts the hungry and makes the eating a culinary experience rather than mere nutritional fortification. Sure, emotions rise and fall; sure, romance flares and fizzles, but I wouldn't subscribe to any effort to do away with them altogether.
It could be that we savor the experience of romance precisely because we recall the rattling, metallic echo of its absence. Hunger pains, after all, lead some to scrounge a little more urgently for food. Would that the world could see a little bolder scrounging for real love!
Romance, I know, is not the same thing as love. But it might well be its scent. Romance, if I read the dictionary right, is about the celebration of, the honoring of, something -- or someone -- that has come to have significance for the person involved. Hormones may well be involved, but surely the celebration of another is more than that. And isn't love birthed in the recognition of another's precious value? I'm thinking we could do with a little more romance than we are accustomed to nurturing. Maybe the approach of Valentine's Day, while triggering flowers and chocolates and who knows what other expressions, could also be the stimulus for taking stock of all those relationships whose vitality we treasure, and celebrate -- romance -- them as well.
They may not all be the drooling kind, but if one just so happens to be..
...drool away. Tissue is cheap.
like a big pizza pie
That's Amore
When the world seems to shine
like you've had too much wine
That's Amore
When the stars make you drool
Just like pasta fazool
That's Amore
When you dance down the street
With a cloud at your feet
You're in love
When you walk in a dream
But you know you're not dreamin', signore
'scusa me, but you see, back in old Napoli,
That's Amore
(words and music by Harry Warren and Jack Brooks)
Is that really love -- drunken, drooling, dancing dreaminess? I'm in favor of such delight. Woozy romance has fallen rather out of favor in recent years -- maligned as the shaky, ephemeral foundation on which to build a genuine relationship. "Love," it is insisted, "is a choice, not an emotion." Fine. But even green leafy vegetables and high-fiber foods cooking can have a scent that attracts the hungry and makes the eating a culinary experience rather than mere nutritional fortification. Sure, emotions rise and fall; sure, romance flares and fizzles, but I wouldn't subscribe to any effort to do away with them altogether.
It could be that we savor the experience of romance precisely because we recall the rattling, metallic echo of its absence. Hunger pains, after all, lead some to scrounge a little more urgently for food. Would that the world could see a little bolder scrounging for real love!
Romance, I know, is not the same thing as love. But it might well be its scent. Romance, if I read the dictionary right, is about the celebration of, the honoring of, something -- or someone -- that has come to have significance for the person involved. Hormones may well be involved, but surely the celebration of another is more than that. And isn't love birthed in the recognition of another's precious value? I'm thinking we could do with a little more romance than we are accustomed to nurturing. Maybe the approach of Valentine's Day, while triggering flowers and chocolates and who knows what other expressions, could also be the stimulus for taking stock of all those relationships whose vitality we treasure, and celebrate -- romance -- them as well.
They may not all be the drooling kind, but if one just so happens to be..
...drool away. Tissue is cheap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)