the turtle speaks

I’m reasonably sure my wife isn’t _the one_ for me

It doesn’t take too long of listening to popular culture before you hear people talking about the one or a soulmate; the person who they are meant for and who compliments them in every way. The person they were destined to be with (by God, Fate, the Universe, Madam Cleo, etc).

I’ve been happily married to the same woman for a little over a decade, but I think it’s time to just come out and say I don’t think she’s my soulmate. That would mean that of the over 3 billion women on the planet, I happen to have found the perfect match. Unlikely.

“But wait!” I hear you say, “some of those are already married or too young or old. And you’ve never met any women from Mongolia, so you can’t count them.”

This is true. So let’s narrow it down a bit. Some general traits that are important to me with a rough numerical estimate:

• A woman (3.75 billion)
• Shorter than I am (99% of women)
• ±3 years of my age (120 million or so)
• Speaks English (~380 million)
• Shares my faith heritage (~1 million)
• Is interesting to me (?)
• Is attractive to me (?)
• Isn’t psychotic

There are, of course, more specific criterion that are important to me, but you get the idea. Add to this a few key points:

• She and I would have to meet (~10,000 or so)
• She is interested and attracted to me (quite small I’m sure)

Even if one were to limit my options to the women at the small, faith-based, private University I went to, that’s still several hundred choices. I didn’t even know half their names.

What I can safely say with confidence is that of all the girls I’ve known (and especially of those I’ve dated), my wife is the best choice of all of them.

So at the risk of sounding cynical, it seems highly improbable that my life circumstances have brought me into contact with the perfect person for me. If there even is a perfect person for me.

Don’t get me wrong, I love my wife and am very happy with my decision and our life together. It’s that I think the one thinking and language (prominent in pop songs and romantic comedies) is detrimental to healthy relationships. Here’s why:

• Basing the relationship on mutual choice rather than some metaphysical compatibility puts the emphasis on commitment to the other person rather than to a relationship ideal. You have a spouse because you consciously choose to love them; not because it was meant to be.
• You realize there are hundreds or thousands of people you might be equally happy with (or happier in some regards, less in others), but that there would be rocky times too. Removing “the one” ideal from a relationship puts your current relationship on par with hypothetical ones.
• You realize that in some sense you “settle” for who you get in a relationship. This can be liberating.
• If your soulmate were to change their mind and run off (as happens with frequency) then they either weren’t your soulmate or, worse yet, the person most meant for you turned on you (ouch).

I look forward to many more decades of marriage to my bride. She’s still the one I want to be with the rest of my life. And our relationship will get better because we work on it and make it better. I’m sure there’s some equally good matches for me out there (even in my limited life experience), but they haven’t been with me the last decade. And that counts for a lot.

Also:

Just had a lady tell me “I could never do foster care. It’d hurt too much when they leave.”

Im guessing she doesn’t know that is what foster families sign up for or she thinks they are immune to the pain of separation and loss.

In defense of short-term missions to the underprivileged

A few days ago, I posted a link to a post Are we calling this a “win-win”? from a missionary in Costa Rica. Here’s my reply (but you can only read if you’ve read her post).

I’ve got an idea.

I’m going to tell my kids about poverty and the injustice in the world and their [Christian, moral] imperative to do something about it.

But I don’t want them to get too serious about it or to be too inconvenienced.

So here’s the plan: we’re going to sit down and look and pictures on the internet depicting poverty and 3rd world conditions, either across the globe or, sadly, in our own nation.

I’ll tell them the house they see is smaller than the room we’re in now and that the floor is actually dirt and not, as in our home, brown carpet.

Or maybe we’ll stay up late one night after watching a movie and eating popcorn on the couch to see some 2 minutes commercial of starving children and a toll-free number for donations to an organization we’ve not heard of staffed by first-world white people.

We might even zoom into the poor countries using Google Earth. Yeah, geography and compassion FTW.

Fortunately they’ll get the message: Looking at ads on the mounted flatscreen HDTV or viewing images of kids on a $1,200 desktop over an internet connection that costs more than their families make each month taken by well-meaning westerners with photographic equipment that costs more than my car has to sink in. Plus they won’t have to smell the smells or experience the weather extremes or hear the different languages or deal with the hassle of traveling.

We may talk about systemic social structures or inequity or imperialism. Fortunately, their worldview won’t be threatened [much]. This will last until they get distracted by the lures of suburbia, and they’ll go back to staying cool and playing with their toys and feeling good about their life.

Plus, it’ll save me a lot of money and time.

The above is a bit of satire. I’m largely sympathetic to the point of the original article, but wrote the above both as Devil’s advocate and because when I linked to it a friend asked for a rebuttal. Here’s where I differ from the original post (or at least what I perceived to be its intent from the tone).

The value of short-term missions to the underprivileged

My kids are currently too young for such a trip, though I hope to take them someday. But they need to realize the trip is not for them. It’s not for them to feel good, nor to feel fortunate, nor to pander. If they were to come home and only feel lucky to be American, then we’ve failed.

I want them to think socially, be responsible, and have a global worldview. This means noting the inequality in the world and being determined to do something about it. It means having a view of the world that transcends their daily experiences. It means treating others — especially the less fortunate — with respect and dignity. It means being committed to equality and justice.

It means living simply with more gratitude and finding ways to share and shorter Christmas lists. It means less nationalism. It means continuing to support Kiva and Wishing Well It means a realization that we’re not American middle-class by choice or worth.

So I realize how things can be misguided and how thousands of dollars can be wasted on trips where the money may be better spent donated to those on the ground. But there’s also something invaluable about seeing the world first-hand and realizing your place in it.

We don’t need more people going to resorts in poor countries, giving funds to multi-national companies, and shunning/ignoring the reality of life around them. We need people who want to make a difference.

What does it take to be a parent? (or, thoughts on the DHS process)

Kate and I recently became interested in doing some foster care, so we contacted a local agency and have gone through the process. We’ve learned a lot about it; it’s fairly involved. Here’s a few things DHS requires before allowing a foster child or kinship placement in your home:

• Income verification
• Background check and fingerprinting
• Auto insurance verification
• Three (phone) interviews with non-family references
• Health screening
• Disclosure of parenting styles, marital and psychological history, and interviews with biological children (if applicable)
• 27 hours of classroom training
• 12 hours of continuing education/year
• Home inspection, including presence of smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, appropriate controlled access to chemicals, etc
• Approval to leave the child with a family member or other person overnight

(These are from memory, and not a comprehensive list)

To have a child apart from DHS’s control, you need to:

• Be physically able to conceive and carry a child to term (repeat as desired)

These are good and red-tape and important procedures. The system needs this to prevent abuse: from those wishing to abuse the financial compensation provided and to screen the sick, unfit, and disturbed.

If society were able to impose a few of the items from the government checklist on prospective parents, there may not be as many children in DHS care. It seems strange that you have to have a license to get married or drive a car or operate a computer.* But not to bring a person into this world.

A license to have children is, of course, an unenforceable, impractical, and horrible idea.

I am grateful that as a society, we’ve determined that taking care of children is a priority. We have a system [that tries] to ensure kids have a home where they are valued, cared for, and loved. But only after they’ve been abused, neglected, ignored, or otherwise uncared for, even if their situation is temporary.

So I’m glad for DHS and the over-worked social workers and for those trying to make a difference in the future of children. There’s a lot to do. But that doesn’t make it a shame that it has to happen at all though (cue comments about the Fall, human nature, etc :-). It’s frustrating that there’s so much brokenness and pain out there and I wonder if it’s at least partially preventable.

* not really, but it’d be nice sometimes :-)

Postscript: I’ve been thinking about this for months and have reworked it 3-4 times. In re-re-reading it, I’m not sure how it comes across. I realize I’m human like everyone but left this as is. I don’t claim to be a great parent (or even a good one). Here’s to compassion, healing, and education.

The ethics of following Satan

This last week in Oklahoma City a Satanist group performed an exorcism at the Civic Center Music Hall downtown. The group, [formerly] known as the Church of the IV Majesties, sought publicity and shock value in their parody of Catholic exorcisms. Fair enough, it’s a free country. Anything we can do to minimize vomiting girls with rotating heads is a plus in my book.

What interested me, however, was circumstances before the event. Before the event one of the co-founders of the church, James Hale, went online to search for the address of another leader. It was then that he found he was a registered sex-offender. This revelation caused some concern in the church, and the offender was expelled (ex-communicated?). Issues like who could cancel the scheduled event and who had control of the bank account were still to be decided.

A few thoughts:

• Why aren’t sex offenders allowed in Satanic groups? It’s not that I think all Satanists are bad or should be sex offenders, but it is curious to me as to why it matters.
  • I’m not sure who one can claim to worship the epitome/personification of evil and exclude people for doing evil. I guess I assumed that moral failings wouldn’t be an issue for Satanists.
  • Perhaps they’re concerned the member will hurt their cause. Something along the lines of “we follow the lord of darkness and those actions don’t conform to that”?
  • Is Satan supposed to produce different traits like concern for the poor and loving your neighbor?
• It’s entirely possible their whole church and faith is a parody (as the exorcism is stated to be). If so, I’m not sure why anyone would bother with Satan. If you’re going to do parody I think the FSM is a better way to go.
• It’s comforting, in a twisted sort of way, to see non-Christian churches have power struggles and membership squabbles.
• It’s tragic that Mr. Hale can address the situation by seriously saying “That’s the difference between us and the Catholic Church. We admit our mistakes and do something about it.” and be right.
• What would Satan’s Beattitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) look like?

I’m genuinely puzzled about this. I’m not too informed about satanic practices but, honestly, not interested enough to learn (for now).

The problem with bacon burgers

I enjoyed lunch with my brother-in-law at Cow Calf Hay* today. I had the daunting Mad Cow burger: potatoes, pepper jack cheese, chicken, bacon, and burger.

Absolutely delicious. One minor complaint though, and it’s common with burgers at sit-down restaurants: the Bacon Dilemma.

See the bacon distribution? Fully half of the bacon is off the burger. The slices are arranged in an unfortunate X pattern across the burger. The obvious disadvantage of this arrangement:

• It allows for bacon-less bites

The advantages:

• It shows there is bacon on the burger
• It allows bacon-only bites

Our server, who seems to be an otherwise reasonable man, suggested it was a feature to have some bites with bacon and some without. I disagree. If I wanted a burger without bacon, I could have ordered it. But why? Bacon is the candy of the meat world. No one wants a bite without meat or lettuce just so they can compare and contrast the different tastes. Who wants a ½ bacon burger?

Regarding the first ‘advantage,’ I hope there’s bacon on the burger. I ordered it that way. They don’t let the cheese hang off an inch all around to make you think you got a good deal. It’s not a bacon bonus (which would be sweet). It’s part of the burger.

And while bacon-only bites are nice, I can order a plate of bacon if that’s what I want.

Clearly, the disadvantages outweigh the [non-existent] advantages.

Fortunately the solution is easy: break the bacon slices in half and arrange them in a delicious overlapping manner across the entirety of the burger, giving delicious bacon flavor to every bite.

It’s just a shame that it has to be done in the first place.

* If you say it fast, it says Cow Cafe which is clever, to be sure. Unfortunately it took me several times of saying it out loud to get it.

Don’t hate the payer, hate the game: My Inner Democrat and Republican go at it again

My inner-Republican and inner-Democrat have another chat

RL: Got another compliment on the credit card recently.

DL: Oh yeah?

RL: Yep. The one where you can upload photos. I’ve got that b&w picture of ComplyKated playing the guitar on the back deck. Get lots of compliments on the picture

DL: Isn’t that a reward card? Like in the commercials?

RL: Yes. It’s the equivalent of 2% of purchases towards future travel expenses.

DL: And you’ve used your reward card before?

RL: Different card, but yes, ComplyKated and I used accumulated rewards to go to Prince Edward Island and Ireland. Planning another trip too.

DL: Did you read that report posted on the Federal Reserve of Boston’s site about reward cards?

RL: I thought about it, but then I saw their statistical formulas on page 40 or so and I got glassy-eyed and quit.

DL: Well I read nearly all of it. What did you think of this?

Because merchants pass credit card processing fees to all customers, regardless of payment method, cash-only households pay more per item and card-using homes benefit through rewards. Furthermore, since card use correlates with class, poor households end up “paying” wealthier households. From the study:

On average, each cash-using household pays $149 to card-using households and each card-using household receives $1,133 from cash users every year. Because credit card spending and rewards are positively correlated with household income, the payment instrument transfer also induces a regressive transfer from low-income to high-income households in general. On average, and after accounting for rewards paid to households by banks, the lowest-income household ($20,000 or less annually) pays $21 and the highest-income household ($150,000 or more annually) receives $750 every year.

RL: Well what about the studies that show that credit card users overspend compared to cash-only customers?

DL: I’m sure that’s true, but that only helps the merchants. All customers are charged the same.

RL: That doesn’t seem fair. Why don’t merchants charge different prices based on payment methods?

DL: Because most CC companies have a No Surcharge Rule in their contract with the merchants (NSR in the study). Those that don’t are reluctant to offer cash-discounts.

RL: Bummer.

DL: So don’t you feel guilty about that? The fact that you use a card nearly all the time costs all consumers — and a disproportionate number of lower-income households — money so you can get rewards?

RL: Well there are other advantages besides rewards: convenience, record-keeping, there’s no cute picture of my wife on the cash…plus that’s how The Game is played. It’s how the system works. Should I switch to being a cash-only customer and suffer financially — to the tune of $1,282/yr on average — out of a sense of solidarity with the lower classes or because The Game is skewed?

DL: I don’t know that I would call that a working system.

RL: Don’t hate the payer, hate The Game. Should we have no cards at all? What’s stopping everyone from using them?

DL: You were proud of that line, weren’t you? I don’t know. Perhaps personal responsibility? They don’t like the idea of everyone paying payment fees just so banks can get rich? Poor credit access to lower classes?

RL: I mean, if there were no NSRs and different prices based on payment methods, I would seriously consider going cash-only. It wouldn’t be worth the rewards.

DL: So you would actively oppose the enforcement of NSRs but keep using your card?

RL: For that kind of money? You betcha. Unfortunately, there are studies that suggest eliminating NSRs wouldn’t be incentive enough to offer different prices. CC users might still pay more to make the equal payments worth it.

DL: It just seems wrong. There ought to be a better way. It’s exploiting people.

RL: Yes, but people who have a choice in the matter. I agree it’s not ideal, but it’s not like we’re doing something illegal or going through a loophole or anything.

DL: There you go with personal responsibility again. How do you live with yourself?

RL: It’s hard. I relax by taking vacations subsidized by cash-only customers.

DL: Jerk. Well at least read the article from the It’s Only Money blog Those credit card rewards cost us a lot of cash and watch a short explanatory video and think about it. Money quote:

You have to hand it to the big banks. They’ve lulled us into thinking merchants are gouging us, that we have the right to use our credit card with impunity and reap free rewards or cash back.

In reality, we’re transferring the cost of this privilege to anyone paying cash or even using a PIN-verified debit card, which experts say is the least costly method of payment.

“The people to blame are you and I,” says Shane Kash, a barista at Palio Dessert & Espresso House in Portland, which imposes a $5 card minimum. “We allow it to happen.”

To stop it isn’t exactly attractive. Why avoid using a rewards card when it makes complete financial sense to do so, when you actually gain some of that extra money back? I’ll be wrestling with that question myself.

My Inner-Republican and Inner-Democrat discuss a NYT op-ed on poverty

Sometimes my inner thoughts take sides against each other and chat. Here’s such an exchange between Republican Luke and Democrat Luke (for lack of better labels).

Republican Luke: Did you see Nicholas D. Kristof’s New York Times opinion Moonshine or the kids?

Democrat Luke: I did. Remember we’re just two manifestations of the same person. You’ve just been hearing me more the last decade and since you switched to an Independent. Remind me of the main premise again?

RL: He said:

It’s [the “ugly secret of global poverty”] that if the poorest families spent as much money educating their children as they do on wine, cigarettes and prostitutes, their children’s prospects would be transformed. Much suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households.

Mr. Kristof, writing from the Congo Republic, highlights a man whose family is about to get kicked out of their home and kids kicked out of school because they can’t pay their rent and tuition. They have no mosquito nets. However, he spends more each month on a cellphone and liquor than rent + tuition for his family.

What did you think? I’ve been around longer, and I know what I think. Let me hear from you.

DL: Honestly, it was a little difficult.

It doesn’t seem very responsible.

RL: I know. That’s my thing; people are — or at least should be — personally responsible and culpable for their choices.

DL: But the system is broken and unfair for so many people. His circumstances are very different than yours. Ever lived in the Congo?

RL: No, but I don’t waste my money.

DL: Really? I like your value judgement. Eating out? Camera gear?

RL: That’s different. It’s expendable income. I realize when my kids need school supplies and when my rent/mortgage needs to be paid. I wouldn’t pay a cellphone bill instead of rent.

DL: Right. You have a little expendable income.

RL: Sure, but I’m a little wary about giving it to heads of households who ignore their families needs to buy moonshine and prostitutes (!). I can waste it better than that.

DL: Of course, you know this isn’t true for everyone, though the article and the studies show the scope of the problem are disturbing. For some people, the systemic problems are insurmountable.

RL: Yes, I’m trying not to get jaded. I just want people to be responsible.

DL: You sound so heartless. What about the innocent kids in poverty? Don’t we support a kid through World Vision?

RL: Valid. We support World Vision and Kiva because we believe they are responsible and making an effort. I’m not for hurting innocent kids. They need a better future and an opportunity. They need to be helped. But by whom? Is agency/government handout going to change the behavior of the kids? Make them more responsible? Remember the article:

Look, I don’t want to be an unctuous party-pooper. But I’ve seen too many children dying of malaria for want of a bed net that the father tells me is unaffordable, even as he spends larger sums on liquor. If we want Mr. Obamza’s children to get an education and sleep under a bed net — well, the simplest option is for their dad to spend fewer evenings in the bar.

So who’s heartless? Me or a father who won’t house/protect his kids with money he has?

DL: But at least if they’re helped, they have a better chance, even if their families can help them but don’t. You are lucky to be born American and white with caring parents.

RL: Yes, an undeserved advantage to be sure. But I’m not neglecting core financial obligations for pleasure. Not all white Americans are middle-class and happy.

DL: But you know better. Not everyone knows.

RL: I chose better, albeit from a better starting place.

DL: So what about grace? You want to be held responsible for all your mistakes?

RL: No, that’s a good point. Hopefully I’m making good life changes in areas I’m wrong. But I don’t want to enable others either. I’m all for forgiving people who want to change, but for people that aren’t sorry, or without consequences, how do people learn?

DL: Are we still talking about just poverty/life choices?

RL: Sort of. I want your perspective when it comes to spirituality/faith, etc but I’m stuck on the social thing. I don’t like the dualism I feel on this, especially since we’ve come to discount the bifurcation between spirituality and other areas of life. We’ll be blogging about that later.

DL: Sounds good. Did you notice the part where microfinance programs, especially those involved in microsavings and involving women, are making a difference?

RL: Oh, I’m all for those. I hope to channel some money towards such things. And I do appreciate the under-appreciated value women, especially those in poverty, have in changing the course of their children’s future.

DL: Ok, so how do you know who’s responsible and who’s not?

RL: Not sure. It’s kind of like buying food for the homeless. It’s a great gesture — and better than giving money — but only helps them today. It doesn’t teach them to fish, which would be better.

DL: So that’s why you like microfinance/microsavings?

RL: Yes. Not everyone wants to fish.

DL: Good to talk to you, as always. I do admit, things were easier when they were black and white.

RL: True, but when things were black and white, you didn’t have a lot to say.

DL: Yeah. I guess we’re maturing.

RL: Indeed. It’s bittersweet.

Thanks for reading the thoughts. I found the op-ed interesting. Mr. Kristof is no conservative, from what I can tell, which is why his short article was of special interest to me. He ended with:

Well-meaning humanitarians sometimes burnish suffering to make it seem more virtuous and noble than it often is. If we’re going to make more progress, and get kids like the Obamza children in school and under bed nets, we need to look unflinchingly at uncomfortable truths — and then try to redirect the family money now spent on wine and prostitution.

Scott Adams, travel agent. Travel agent, Scott Adams.

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) recently blogged on The Less Feature. After a frustrating online experience, he wishes he could pay more for fewer options in several areas of life, noting his fondness of a simple iPad as his example. I agree with his point (my Apple zealotry confirming this) except for his main complaint: travel. He notes that after fighting several travel-booking sites:

…The flight I picked had all sorts of seating options and levels of travel that I needed to research. Then I needed to arrange the rental car, the hotel, and the airport pickup. Then I took all of the information and reformatted it in a way I could read. At some point in the process I crossed a line: The time to plan and book the trip took longer than it will take to fly across the entire country… Worse yet, I don’t have the slightest confidence that I got the best deal or the most convenient flight.

These travel-booking sites that Adams mentions were invented to make an inherently complicated process easier. For a short vacation to downtown NYC or booking a flight and rental car to see family, this can work great. But what if you need something more complicated? Multiple-cities? Multiple airlines? Rail or complex car rental? Out-of-the-way hotels, bed and breakfasts, or attraction tickets? The multitude of destinations, options, customizations, and personalizations cannot be simplified. A travel agent helps navigate the complexities, either for an included commission or a reasonable fee.

Not that a person can’t do all this work themselves. Some, in fact, enjoy it. What travel agents offer is convenience, saving time and, often, money for the busy. Not everyone thinks this is worth their dollars, and that’s ok. For those that do, travel agents offer a great service. And the travel sites exist for those who want to hunt or who don’t need many options.

The tax code should be more comprehensible, but until it is I’m going to enlist the help of someone to assist me with my return. I can do it myself, but I don’t want to. Some don’t want to spend time cleaning or mowing their lawn or changing their oil and will pay extra for such services.

It’s the diversity and options that make travel great. Whether you want to save time or need more than simplicity (and I’m not sure which category Adams falls into), there’s an agent for that.

Disclaimer: My wife is a travel agent and manages other travel agents. Some are willing to pay for her services and others aren’t. It’s interesting to me to see how people choose to travel and what they’re looking for. It’s also sad when a problem comes up, and someone tries to call customer service on a website because a flight was cancelled or a booking was wrong.

On God and diamond rings

I’m not sure to what degree God works. I hear people talk with certainty about what he is doing in their life, and I’m usually skeptical or jealous (more on that later). Occasionally, however, something happens that gets me thinking more.

Kate called while I was on the scenic drive to Abilene for work. She said, with some trepidation, that she had lost her engagement ring. My fingers have remained the same size since high school and my rings only come off with coercion. My bride’s fingers have slimmed a little, giving her rings a little latitude. She had done some work around he house and some gardening in the backyard, but wasn’t sure where it came loose. Initial searches were unsuccessful.

I’m proud of that ring. It was the one she wanted — simple platinum band with a single stone — and I was proud that I bought it with cash after working hard for most of a summer. There is also, of course, the symbolic and sentimental value. I had previously told her that she got a free replacement ring should the original ever get lost, but I wasn’t looking forward to ever making good on that.

A few weeks later Kate and the boys went skiing with family, and work obligations kept me home. I was outside on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, enjoying a beverage, sunshine, and The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard. The open pages spoke of communicating deeply with God. I don’t do this well. I said a prayer asking for the concepts in the book to be true in my life.

The next morning during bible class, my mind wondered to the missing ring. I got a strong sense that it was in our backyard, in one of two potted plants adorning part of our mini-courtyard. The pot in the corner seemed the most likely place, with the ring in the middle of the soil. I have no idea why this thought came to me in the middle of class; I had not thought of the ring in a while.

After services, I went straight home and started unearthing the plant in the corner pot. Sure enough, in the center of the pot about halfway down, was the ring. It was not only in the last place I looked for it, but in the first place as well. I took a picture and emailed it to Kate. There was much rejoicing.

Does God care about lost diamond rings, especially with weightier matters in the world? Does the ring even matter in light of the lesson? Why am I still dismissive at times and give chance some credence? I’m not looking for hard-and-fast answers, but I am grateful for the lesson, the book, and the experience (oh, and the ring :)

I’m getting there (I think).

A few reflections on my first year without grandparents

About this time last year, I lost my paternal grandfather, Marshall Hartman. Kate and I had just come back from Ireland, and he passed the next morning. 7 weeks later, to the day, my grandmother passed away.

I was fortunate to be born with four grandparents and three great-grandparents. While I didn’t see them as much as some others, due to growing up in Australia, but their influence on my life was fairly strong. My teenage years involved lots of time with family; 23 cousins and 8 sets of aunts and uncles.

I didn’t lose any grandparents until 2003 and 2006, and had two grand grandparents until junior high.

I realized last summer I had no more grandparents. It hit me a little when Thanksgiving came.

Dynamics change when your grandparents die. The generation and their descendants are gone, and everyone moves up a step. Grandparents are gone. My parents are the grandparents for my kids, and aunts and uncles lose the direct family connection that brought us together. We still get together, but it’s not the same, and won’t ever be. I have become the person in the role my parents had in my mind while growing up. My kids are me. It’s just part of the cycle.

I loved all my grandparents differently and have fond memories of them all. I probably felt more affinity to my Hartman grandparents, due to surname identity and my dad’s frequent stories about them. Marshall Hartman was well-respected, as was Luther, his father (and my namesake); I inherited some of that respect by virtue of his life.

It hasn’t been a drastic change, not a difficult one, but more one of perception. A clear realization of the cycle of life that has moved to another stage. A loss of ties, history, care, and, to an extent, identity.

We got together with much of my mom’s family today for a baby shower. The mood was good, time was enjoyed, and I love them. But it wasn’t the same without the grandparents. Our initial common link is gone.

Granddad yesterday, I drank a chocolate malt from Braum’s [your favorite] in your memory. I would have poured a sip on the concrete, but I know how thrifty you are; didn’t want to waste any :-)