Gina Harris's Blog, page 29

Barney Miller: The Election

I was not going to write about this one.

Episode 5 of Season 3, "The Election" is set on Election Day 1976, when Americans chose Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford. The episode aired (and was filmed) before the election, so the results were unknown. 

They focus instead on voting. 

One shoplifter still needs to get to the polls. He slips out of custody from the voting booth, but takes that time to pay for the stolen items before returning himself to the precinct. 

Wojo has proudly voted, and wants to know how others are voting. He is unable to get a satisfactory answer. Harris does admit to being a Republican, though he does not specify support for Ford. Dietrich does not discuss politics, Yemana is regarding the election mainly in terms of bets placed, and the secrecy of the ballot -- and a probable desire to avoid influencing the men he leads -- keeps Barney from being willing to answer.

Barney also acknowledges there are other races, though most people are focusing on the presidential one.

Luger is focusing on a local race, encouraging others to vote for the candidate he knows, a name familiar to the people he talks to for some corruption allegations while over sanitation.

I am fine with their desire to not commit further. It would be reasonable to guard against exerting undue influence. It also avoids alienating viewers who disagree, and having fictional characters back a real candidate with a chance of losing.

My issue is with the way they explored voting in the other plot.

A call comes into the precinct because a man was hit in the head with a toilet seat that appeared to have come from a third floor window. It had "HELP" written on it.

The seat was thrown by Edna Relkie (Brett Somers), whose husband locked her in the bathroom to prevent her from voting. 

The detectives take it very seriously as a violation of civil rights, which is good. 

Her husband is arrested and claims it was to prevent her vote from canceling out his, and that he has studied the issues and she is ignorant. That would be a typical attitude in a case like this.

There may be three ways in which they get it wrong.

First, they make him a Democrat, locking her up because she said she was going to vote Republican. There is a reason why that might work, but in general, locking women up so they can't vote and ruin things would be more of a Republican move.

Second, he then casts everything as her dominating him; he was considerate to lock her in the bathroom instead of the closet. His parting shot is that he used to be taller than her.

If she was the dominating one, it seems unlikely that he would have been inclined or able to lock her up. 

There is another aspect to that which makes it more important, but the part I initially hated was that then she was asking everyone how to vote, decided not to vote when no one would tell her, and Barney's solution was to close her eyes while choosing.

I suppose the backstory you could add is that the whole thing shook her confidence, causing her to doubt her initial inclination to vote Republican. I feel what they are really doing is playing into feminine stereotypes and giving into backlash against feminism. I do not appreciate it.

When I was writing about when Barney Miller gets women wrong specifically, I did not cite this episode, but I did think of it. Still, I hadn't thought it required any additional comment.

I just finished Survivor Injustice by Kylie Cheung Wednesday. 

It covers many types of interpersonal violence and abuse, but interfering with voting is a pretty common one and how it starts. However, it is generally only one part of the abuse. 

Where they may have gotten it right is that it is not limited to one party. The book did acknowledge that as a matter of policy support, there is some similarity to Republican policies, but there are abusers on both sides.

There were stories of canvassers coming upon women who were scared to talk, or not allowed to talk when their partner intruded on the conversation. There were women who could not register to vote so as not to allow their abusive ex to locate their new address. There was a woman whose husband accompanied her into the voting booth, telling the workers that she was slow and needed help. There was the woman who didn't vote because she was afraid of running into her abusive ex again.

While going to polling places does not affect us here in Oregon, if you live with someone who is abusive and controlling, they may not let you fill out your ballot and mail it as desired.

As I was reading that, I kept thinking of this episode and getting mad.

I understand they are trying to make it funny; they probably were not thinking about how terrible some women do have it, because again, there were the occasional wife-beating jokes. I don't think they really would think a woman getting beaten up is funny, probably, but it's that paternalism, where women don't really have it that bad, bless their hearts.

The episode bothered me -- despite my love for the series -- and now it bothers me more.

Text-cards

I think a lot about being connected more.

One of the ideas came about when we were in San Diego. My sisters were noticing that you don't see postcards now the way you used to. There are not as many for sale, and often more drawn than photographed.

I assume that is because people are buying them less, and that factors in that include people not sending as much mail in general, but also people taking photos with their phone and then uploading them... there would be less demand.

It occurred to me, though, that I could send text postcards: snap a photo and send it to a friend saying "Wish you were here!"

I tried that in front of the turtle enclosure, but the picture didn't go through.

It still seemed like the idea had some promise.

I got another friend's cell phone number to see if we might be able to get together while I was kind of in the area. I got the number late; we did not get together and I did not sent any pictures.

That was mainly timing, but the other issue is that when we go places, I am using a camera instead of my phone. I take lots of pictures, but not that way. Still, I could potentially whip the phone out, if I remembered.

I have since obtained one more friend's cell phone number, and texted that friend a picture that I thought she would like. Progress!

With a long way to go.

Barney Miller: The Child Stealers

It is hard to pick a favorite episode, but this one -- episode 15 of season 6 -- is right near the top.

Part of that is our love for Marty and Darryl, played by Jack DeLeon and Ray Stewart, but I would not write a post just for that. There is a dynamic in play that I think is really important, but that gets overlooked.

Marty and Darryl are both gay men. We first meet Marty as a purse snatcher and shoplifter, but Darryl always seems to have been well off financially. Reading one thing about this episode, the writer mentioned Darryl's clothing (a suit and overcoat) as a move away from the stereotype. Even when he is dressed more flamboyantly it is with excellent taste, including a handmade sweater from Italy.

I think the suit is because he is being business-like, wanting to be taken seriously; his ex-wife is no longer honoring the visitation granted in their custody agreement. 

Captain Miller is sympathetic, but that is outside of their jurisdiction. When Marty and Darryl try and snatch Darryl's son Jason from his school, that is very much in police jurisdiction.

For queer representation, this episode is more important for Officer Zatelli outing himself when tensions get high as Eleanor -- Darryl's ex-wife -- insinuates that her son should not be corrupted by exposure to the gay lifestyle.

That was not really her problem.

In fact, there had been a growing resentment that when Jason was with Darryl, his time consisted of going to Broadway shows and the ballet and the best restaurants, and then she had to be the one telling him to do his homework and go to bed and that they couldn't afford truffles.

The custodial parent having to be the heavy while the non-custodial parent gets to be the fun one is a common enough conflict that it has shown up in other television shows, and in real life.

While it was not discussed, it was also always more likely that the man was going to have more financial resources. We have been talking about gender-based pay disparity for years without much progress, and this was 1980.

Getting those issues worked out is not easy in the best of circumstances. As things get worked out, Eleanor asks Darryl to bore Jason once in a while. Maybe it would be nice if he gifted her tickets sometimes, or invited her to dinner. Once the worst of the tension subsides, you can tell there is still affection between them.

(That is one of the things I admire about acting: the performers having probably never worked together before, and yet you feel all of this unstated backstory.)

I would say that I know a surprising number of couples who have gotten married and then split up because one of them was gay, except it's not really a surprising number. I am Mormon, and my friends were largely getting married in the 90s. Things were starting to get better, but a lot of people were still remaining in the closet and feeling pressured to do so. They were not all from church either.

Who knew that getting married to someone of the opposite sex would not relieve the pressure?

Some of the eventual breakups were more acrimonious than others. I can only imagine the hurt and sense of betrayal. That so many of them have been able to successfully co-parent is a wonderful thing. 

That is worth thinking about, but here is the point that I really want to make...

It was easy for Eleanor to blame it on Darryl's sexual orientation.

Maybe it was embarrassing to admit that she was jealous and frustrated, but it was easy to not even mention that because so many people were going to be supportive. If there was still some sting from losing her husband because he was gay, maybe that's just gravy.

As long as we have groups that are marginalized, people will use that. 

Sometimes they are just being jerks, but taking those easy targets can keep us from really getting at the root.

Cutting Jason off from his father wasn't good for anyone. She might have been able to influence a judge to cut off visitation because of Darryl's sexual orientation, but who would that have helped? She would have been left with her resentment, her son would have one less person who loves him available, and Darryl would have been very hurt (which would only bring a temporary and wrong satisfaction to Eleanor).

The truth sets us free, but sometimes it requires digging.

A Cheerful Receiver

If asking to be paid for work was hard, simply receiving has its own difficulty.

Technically I have been poor since 2016. That was when I was laid off at the same time that my mother started to get worse. It was clear that the right thing to do was to stay with her, and that remains clear. 

That does not mean that I clearly understood how things would go.

From about that point, almost any time friends took me out they were treating me. I didn't feel great about it, but I do have good friends and it was also possible to believe it was temporary.

Well, it was temporary. I started working again and started to dig my way out of the whole. I even bought a friend lunch on one excursion.

Then the garnishment started.

No one is being terrible about it. Being open about it probably helps. I don't have any illusions that everyone reads my blog, but there is information out there, and I am certainly past the point of trying to hide a shameful secret.

That doesn't mean I am over it bothering me, which does seem like something to work on. How much of it is pride? How much of it is feelings of unworthiness? How much am I caught up in societal expectations despite all I know about the flaws of unbridled capitalism and the absolute fallacy of a meritocracy?

I am not sure. 

There are a few thoughts that keep bumping around on my path to wholeness.

One is a memory from three years ago. It feels like it's been longer.

At that point I had started getting some pay for caring for Mom, so I had some money but not much. I had $10, and I strongly felt that I needed to give it to someone. Remembering it, I remember it feeling awkward to offer it and worse because it was so little. I had kind of forgotten how big an offering it would have been for me. I was remembering only having $10 cash, but in fact that would have been a pretty big chunk of my available funds in any form.

I remember awkwardly tendering the offer, and her saying "I accept it with a good heart."

Which was what I needed to hear.

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2020/04/re-becoming-somebody.html

I also keep thinking about some of the people who are always participating in mutual aid. They give to others, and they draw attention to the needs of others, but they also ask when they need it.

Is it hard for them? Is it easier because they do so much to help others? Does that help them know it's okay?

Are they just more evolved, where they not only intellectually understand the need for mutual aid but feel it emotionally as well?

I mean, given that my past baggage had a lot to do with having to take responsibility for everyone else first, and put others over me, I might be a little behind in getting there.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to help people, but sometimes it is also necessary to be helped. 

I'm still trying to work that out.

Classic television: Barney Miller

One sisterly project has been watching or re-watching classic television on DVDs so there are no parts missing. I use "classic" to mean that we like it, but they have mostly been from the '70s and '80s.

We just started Daria, which is more recent. Before that we finished seasons 1-5 of Designing Women. (The last two seasons of that series are not classic.)

Before that we finished Barney Miller. I have been wanting to write about it, but I wanted to finish a certain book first, and things just happen.

I really love the show, with a deep affection for most of the cast. I have to consider that such a positive portrayal of the police is fictional, but even in the context of the show, graft and racism and harassment are common not just in other cities but also in other precincts.

You can observe a deliberate effort to do good and create empathy. That is not just with a multi-racial cast but also with a wide variety of people passing through the precinct, as both crime victims and criminals, most of whom are at least somewhat sympathetic.

You can easily tell that the creative team was up on the current psychology and influenced by that.

That is where some of the weaknesses come in.

The creators were in contact with gay advocacy groups at the time, and worked with them to improve their portrayals. This led to some memorable gay characters, but there was also this attempt to work out why they were gay. 

This was true to the time. About ten years later, I still remember the sister-in-law of a young gay man telling us how he had 7 of the 8 traits that led to homosexuality, including a domineering mother. 

That's not how it works, but that definitely would have been the prevailing theory at the time, along with icebox mothers and smothering mothers.

It is worth noting that the great gay characters they showed were all white men. Diversity beyond that was harder to come by.

That still put them ahead of other shows at the time, but there were other ways in which they really could have used some conversations with women to improve those portrayals.

As it was, none of their attempts to introduce women officers worked well (Battista was the best, and may that was because being short and Puerto Rican gave her something besides being "the girl"), wife-beating was a not uncommon punch line, and they completely missed the point on marital rape.

That was probably also very much in line with the prevailing thoughts of the time, including if you spoke to psychiatrists; the psychiatrists they spoke to were almost certainly white men.

There are things that grate. 

Of course, sometimes the issue is that you are going for a laugh, and you seek it where it isn't funny.

This is where Dietrich becomes my least favorite character. Supposed to be an incredibly intelligent and informed person, he still will often say things that are completely inappropriate, simply for their comedic value. That turned out to be something racist at Yemana surprisingly often. They often made effective jokes about Nick being assumed to be Chinese when he was Japanese-American, but too often if it was coming from Dietrich it was something reducing Nick to his Asian-ness. 

Nick was so much more than that.

Dietrich was the worst part of "The Harris Incident", which covers some important ground, and still has some solid humor. 

His jokes too often ended up being cheap.

I don't intend for this to reflect badly on the actor, Steve Landesberg; it was the material he was given. It's fitting, really; Dietrich is good at annoying that Harris and this one.

This post is not just to say that the show was not perfect and that I know it was not perfect. It is worth noting that the weaknesses came from not listening enough to the marginalized, even when there was sympathy and intent to do good. This is a common problem. Even with more understanding of how racism is part of a structure, and not just a personal feeling, we often don't do enough to work through that.

I also wanted to go over the show in general before focusing on one specific episode that has a subtle but important point, and was also very funny.

Next Friday!

Related posts:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2023/06/7-television-shows-to-get-to-know-me.html

A hard ask

I don't like asking for things in general.

I'm sure some of that is feminine socialization. More of it might be the specific inferiority complex that I picked up from my childhood, where I knew that we were poor and felt like I was a nuisance. 

As much progress as I have made, a lot of that lingers. "Leaning in" would be difficult.

Obviously, being in worse financial circumstances now, that is going to come up more.

There were some battles with my sisters over the years, but we have worked through that, where I can ask them for help now, though I do try and limit it. They are going to get the brunt of the garnishment, especially Julie.

There was something else that I had to do. 

Somewhere between where I knew the garnishment was coming and before it started, I was asked to help a friend with updating his resume and generating a cover letter. He said he would pay.

I did not say that he did not have to pay, but I also did not set any specifics because I was not planning on charging him.

There are a few reasons for that. Certainly, if people need help job hunting, I am generally assuming they don't have money to spare. If you're my friend I want to help you. Also, I don't have any special expertise in job hunting materials. Any ability I have with that comes from my language skills and knowledge of psychology, but the last time I was actually taught how to do it was Personal Finance class in high school, meaning I always have to check current trends when starting a new one. 

Is it even reasonable to charge for that?

(Internet research also revealed that those who do charge ask for $125 to $175 for a cover letter. That seems high for the amount of effort required.)

Another development related to Maria often asking me to do things for her. They are usually more busywork or artwork for her classroom, and says she will pay. Historically I have not pressed, and often payment was forgotten.

Lately I have been having her pay. If it is actually worth something to her, why not?

So it occurred to me that I needed to ask for payment for the cover letter.

I hated doing that so much. Even just writing about it now -- when I have already received the money and spent it -- my stomach knots up thinking about it.

It's not his fault. He agreed, sent the money quickly, and would have paid more if I had pressed. (Obviously, I did not charge $175.)

I think it was important to do. I don't like it. I may have to do more of it.

I know some people have this philosophy that everything happens for a specific reason for you... I don't. A bunch of free agents crashing around within the structures that were built by previous generations creates plenty of opportunities. Sometimes the reason is that some people are just jerks.

However, I also believe in the possibility of divine intervention, and frequent guidance, and I believe we should learn things from our experiences.

I may have an issue I need to resolve.

Daily Songs 1995 - 1999

I do still like periodically exploring songs by decade. I do still remember some of these songs from back when they were new. 

Some of these I remember from movie or television ads, or in rare cases my sisters played them.

Real McCoy and Gin Blossoms were great discoveries when I got back from my mission and back into college. "Macarena" I know because they taught us how to do it at a dorm meeting, so I got in on that one a little early, while it was still mainly in clubs.

It was fun sharing "Barbie Girl" shortly after seeing the movie. If I'd seen the movie sooner, I might have used "Push" instead of "3AM" for 1996. I did use "Closer to Fine" for 1989, but that was over a year ago now.

The big difference I found this time is that I could not manage to go through and listen to all the unfamiliar songs. I tried.

It is not necessarily that there are fewer songs that I like during the second half of the 90s, though that could be an influence. It is more that I did not have the time and patience to make the effort. Life got too hard.

I don't know if I will ever get back to reviewing bands, let alone two a week. Maybe I don't need to know what songs were from what year, and be able to recognize all the hits.

I will still always be thinking about music.

Daily Songs

8/1 “Run Away” by Real McCoy
8/2 “Til I Hear It From You” by Gin Blossoms
8/3 “Roll To Me” by Del Amitri
8/4 “Gangsta's Paradise” by Coolio
8/5 “Kiss From A Rose” by Seal
8/6 “In the House of Stone and Light” by Martin Page
8/7 “I Know” by Dionne Farris
8/8 “As I Lay Me Down” by Sophie B. Hawkins
8/9 “Good” by Better Than Ezra
8/10 “Runaway” by Janet Jackson

1996

8/11 “Macarena (Bayside Boys Mix)” by Los Del Rio
8/12 “Give Me One Reason” by Tracy Chapman
8/13 “Counting Blue Cars” by Dishwalla
8/14 “Follow You Down” by Gin Blossoms
8/15 “Name” by Goo Goo Dolls
8/16 “Only Wanna Be With You” by Hootie & the Blowfish
8/17 “3AM” by Matchbox Twenty
8/18 “One Headlight” by Wallflowers
8/19 “Breakfast At Tiffany's” by Deep Blue Something
8/20 “Missing” by Everything But The Girl

1997

8/21 “MMMBop” by Hansen
8/22 “Semi-Charmed Life” by Third Eye Blind
8/23 “Barely Breathing” by Duncan Sheik
8/24 “When You're Gone” by The Cranberries
8/25 “Sonny Came Home” by Shawn Colvin
8/26 “Barbie Girl” by Aqua
8/27 “When You Love a Woman” by Journey
8/28 “Unbreak My Heart” by Toni Braxton
8/29 “Foolish Games” by Jewel
8/30 “Where Do You Go” by No Mercy

1998

8/31 “All For You” by Sister Hazel
9/1 “Truly Madly Deeply” by Savage Garden
9/2 “One Week” by Barenaked Ladies
9/3 “The Mummer's Dance” by Loreena McKennit
9/4 “I Don't Want To Wait” by Paula Cole
9/5 “How's It Going To Be” by Third Eye Blind
9/6 “Bitter Sweet Symphony” by The Verve
9/7 “Tubthumping” by Chumbawamba
9/8 “The One I Gave My Heart To” by Aaliyah
9/9 “Closing Time: by Semisonic

1999

9/10 “Kiss Me” by Sixpence None the Richer
9/11 “Every Morning” by Sugar Ray
9/12 “Slide” by Goo Goo Dolls
9/13 “Learn To Fly” by Foo Fighters
9/14 “Fly Away” by Lenny Kravitz
9/15 “Unpretty” by TLC
9/16 “She's So High” by Tal Bachman
9/17 “Amazed” by Lonestar
9/18 “Jumper” by Third Eye Blind
9/19 “I Will Remember You” by Sarah McLachlan

You got to have friends

The post title is also the title of Episode 12 of Designing Women Season 4, when some missed child support payments reduce Mary Jo to working at Burger Guy.

Despite the absence of Suzanne and only a brief glimpse of Charlene, the episode is well-written and funny. It should have been possible to still have funny, well-written episodes after Season 5, but I digress.

There are two things that have been causing me to think more about friendship, separate from my need for more money.

One was the death of a resident in Mom's facility.

Actually, he first stood out because he was so young to be so far advanced, but he was often sitting next to Mom when I would visit. 

Jeff died about a week after Mom was going in and out of the hospital and being admitted into hospice, so there was a lot going on. I looked for him out of habit, and he wasn't there. Then there was a different name on his door, and we found the obituary.

The staff won't really tell you things about other residents (which is reasonable), but I did mention finding the obituary to one of the staff. I said that we didn't talk much but we did some because he was often sitting next to Mom when I would come by. The worker did tell me one story. Once when Mom was crying, Jeff came over to comfort her and tell her it was going to be all right. He told her "Don't tell anyone, but you're my favorite."

I wonder if that was something he would tell his kids when they were sad.

Mom's roommate has told me how much she likes "Ju-Ju", and how sweet she is. Now, it is always possible to wonder how much any of the residents are clearly remembering, but saying how sweet Mom is... that's literally what everyone says about her, with or without dementia. 

It has also been said by the daughter and son-in-law of another resident, about whom Mom has said, with a big smile, "I like him!"

So yes, there are definitely things they don't remember and can't recognize, and yet these relationships do matter. That is touching and sweet, and also sad because they are all going to disappear. I don't know how well that will be processed, or how long or how much the gap will be felt.

The other thing was this article:

https://www.insider.com/how-to-make-new-friends-as-an-adult-arranged-friendships-2023-7

The article is worth reading, but briefly, a woman who had relocated shortly after having a baby had a hard time making friends in her new area. She did many activities and met many people, but those acquaintances did not turn into friendships. Eventually -- along similar principles to arranged marriages -- she asked some women whom she thought would be good fits to be friends, and it worked out.

As she talked about this more, other woman would ask her for advice. Frequently it was not so much about meeting new friends, but changing existing friend relationships, making them more intentional.

My dearest friends mostly come from shared circumstances. Maybe we went to school together or church together, but I have gone to school and church with a lot of people that I don't cherish, even if I have nothing against them. Something clicked where we built a stronger bond.

Otherwise, often my social life has been more about my coworkers. Sometimes there are ones I really love, but then when we don't work together we often lose touch.

There have been friends that I have had for shorter times, and that was okay.

There have been friends who meant more to me than I did to them, and probably vice versa.

Often, a lot of it happens by chance, and that is probably not ideal.

As it is, I do remember suggesting to one of my friends that we make a point of talking on the phone once a month, or something like that. We liked the idea and nonetheless failed to keep it up. I don't doubt the caring, but life is busy -- sometimes in very soul-crushing ways -- and it is hard. 

I believe one factor is proximity to other people. Most of my friends have husbands or children (or both) , and I have my sisters. That means if we don't see each other for a few months, we are not bereft, but it also makes it easier to let the months go by. 

People who live alone but rely on people in bigger households may end up more isolated, especially since the pandemic started.

I don't want to lose touch with the people I love, but it takes effort. Maintaining contact may end up lower on the list of things requiring effort, given that it is only something I want to do as opposed to something I am obligated to do.

I noticed in the article that these seem to be primarily friend groups, generally of around six people. That was the exact size of my main junior high group. Do the numbers matter?

I don't have any answers here; I am just thinking about it.

It may be hampered by a recurring reluctance on my part to impose. "Hey! We should be talking more!"

However, in the course of getting together, it may not hurt to ask if they would like more. Here are our patterns; does this work for you? We can be intentional.

As for asking in general, that will come up again.

Black Music Month + For the Birds = Charlie Parker?

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that I wrote all of those Black Music Month 2023 posts and completely ignored two books about "Yardbird" (or "Bird"), Charlie Parker.

But I did.

Chasin' the Bird: Charlie Parker in California by Dave Chisholm with Pete Markowski

Kansas City Lightning: The Rise and Times of Charlie Parker by Stanley Crouch

It would have made sense if I had remembered when I was writing about jazz, but Parker is not so avant-garde that he makes my skin crawl. 

I guess I didn't remember because I had not chosen to read them as part of the planned month.

Back when I was in college, I attended a conversation between Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis, and I spoke to them afterwards. I have been interested in Crouch's work ever since.

The funny part is I think I remember even back then him mentioning researching Parker; did he spend over a decade researching the book? Not impossible.

I believe what happened is that I came across Chisholm's book -- a graphic novel -- by accident, and then decided it was time to read Kansas City Lightning.

From reading the two close together, they give very different views of Parker. 

This is partly inevitable, as they cover very different time periods. Crouch focuses on Parker's early life and musical development, while Chisholm's book focuses on an established musician spending time in California (as the title suggests).

It would not be impossible for similar books about a different person to feel like a natural, connected sequence, but that is not the case with Parker's life. The "Chasin'" may be the most important part of Chisholm's title. 

Using the analogy of the blind men and the elephant, Chisholm focuses on a few different people attending a show. They already know Parker, with various levels of complication in their relationships, and none of them are completely sure that he will show. 

Parker may be unusually hard to know. Whether that is a part of his genius, or his genius is just the reason people tolerate some of his inscrutability is hard to answer. Many of the glimpses we see are fascinating, and not mean-spirited, but also not reliable.

Parker is far from the only jazz player to be like that. He might be the most interesting, but then maybe if we could know more, that would look different again.

I often say that there is always more to know. That is true not just because as I take in more information I am aware of additional holes in my information, but also because reading more than one book on a subject shows different facets and interpretations where apparent conflicts are not automatically invalid. 

The point that becomes clear to me from just these two books is that there isn't always a remedy for what you don't know. Sometimes you can't know.

At least not on this side.

Good talks

The insight mentioned in the previous post would not have happened without conversations with my sisters.

We have gotten better at this, though it took a while. 

The first time I asked anyone about anything related to Mom's condition and eventual death, the answers I received ranged from no responses to "I don't know."

More recently, we were talking about visiting. I said that they don't have to visit Mom -- she does not really know if they are or not -- but one day she will die, and we may not get much warning; they will have to decide what will help them be okay with that. 

Julie told one of her friends about that, and got the response, "Wow, Gina's really mean."

Obviously, but I was just trying to be practical.

Still more recently, we were talking about some concerns that someone else was having due to an elderly relative in bad health. I had answers. I had researched all of that and had notes. That is the "Death List".

That led to talking about notifications. I have notes on that too. There are people I will call, and people who will get e-mail or Facebook messages. One point of contact can take care of telling people from church. For one friend, we will tell her daughter so she can decide if her mother is up to it, and would benefit from knowing. Our mother isn't the only one whose health is deteriorating.

There is an order that it needs to be done in, because there are some people who will proclaim it loudly and insensitively. Other people would be hurt finding out like that, and no one needs worse pain.

As we were talking about it this time, they thought of a friend of theirs who would be hurt if she did not hear it from them. 

I had never thought of that aspect. My thoughts went to family members and friends of Mom, but what about my friends?

I mean, it's been a few years since I made the Death List anyway; it's probably due for revamping. 

I momentarily got optimistic that some of those questions that were not answered back then could be answer now.  

They still don't know. That's okay, this is hard.

Still, seeing that we do talk better now, and that we have meaningful conversations way more often than we used to, and also being reminded that we have different perspectives so they will think of things that I would not... all of that let me know that I needed to run some of these ideas about my feelings about Mom by them. 

They did not immediately get what I was asking, but that eventually led me to see that I had been thinking about it in a way that wasn't quite right either. 

I had thought and written before we talked, and I did more writing and thinking after, but that conversation was needed.

We don't do this alone.