Dear Ann and Abby:
I used to read your mother's advice columns in the paper when I was growing up, and now, I sometimes read y'all today. Growing up I felt that the column was quaint and old fashioned, and nowadays I don't know what to think: unrealistic and out of touch?
Of course with all these years gone, I may be the one who is quaint and out of touch.
I certainly am led to understand that the values I grew up with such as "fairness", "honesty", "empathy" and "generosity" are indeed quaint and out of step - but that's a different rant.
The other day I picked up the paper and snorted about the bad advice given. Today, my snort wasn't as bad or as long - indeed I mostly agreed, but thought the key thought was not given.

A woman wrote in, saying that she divorced her emotionally abusive husband 7 years earlier, he remarried first, she just recently. Her adult children blame her for the breakup, and she is concerned that she will miss opportunities to see her grandchildren, because of this conflict. Abby says to concentrate on her own life. Good advice as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough... because what's missing is the truth that you can't make somebody love you.

"You can't make somebody love you." is important enough that I'm staring a new paragraph for it. You can encourage people to love you, by doing various things to be loveable. You can most definitely do things that would make someone not love you; but you can't make someone love you. And after the years have gone by, it's even harder to do the various things to make one loveable. Debating with your children, spouse, parents, family, church, neighbors will not make them love you.

Aren't our children supposed to love us? Aren't our parents required to love us? How about our spouses - didn't they promise to love forever?

If we love someone hard enough, why can't they love us in return? What if we break our backs working morning to night, trying to win their love? What if we do all the things that we know they want us to do? What if we change ourselves so completely as to be a new person? What if we walk the straight and narrow?

If I had that woman in my office, I would ask her what's she done over the past 7 years to show her children that she still loves them. While we can't force someone to love us, we can show them that irregardless we still love them. Little notes, doing things, remembering holidays, birthdays, special occasions - not asking anything in return.

By the way, this doesn't apply to EXs. While I'm sure some EXs would appreciate you coming over to do chores, give them money, hop in the sack, mop the kitchen floor, etc.; as a general rule, this is not a good idea. A betting person would find it an easy bet that it would end bad. Don't do it.

As for our children and parents, we have to get our minds used to the idea that they might not love us, they might never love us, irregardless of what we do or have done. If the past post-trauma seven years of our showing them our love hasn't worked - then bluntly not much else will. We extend the olive branch, mean it, and we go on with our lives.

Happy Thanksgiving -
It is good that there is one special day a year for giving thanks. For although, it may be better to give thanks everyday, and several times a day - it's easy to forget, to rush, to expect things to be as they are, if not better.
So we are given one day a year for thanksgiving. Some people spend the time on getting together with family and friends, to eat, to watch parades and football games. Nothing wrong with that. To be in the joyful company of loved ones is a wonderful way to spend a day. To watch folks having fun is also a way to help us have fun.
But you can also be thankful when you're alone or not having fun. Fun is not a prerequisite to being thankful - just ask those folks with sinks of dirty dishes. Being alone does not necessarily mean being unwanted.
Sometimes we have to look ahead, to see the opportunities awaiting us. Sometimes we have to look behind, to see our accomplishments. The majority of us will never be rich or famous, but we will have things to be thankful for.

The question is never "Why me?", it's "Why not me?"
be thankful.

Over the next couple of days;  I hope to be sweeping the blog, clearing out the cobwebs,  and even changing the name - but not the address.  I began a regional denominational history blog (!) as my first blog, and then started this one to put my non-history stuff up. 

 I had  picked "UU-ing" as an obscure and oblique metaphor for the balancing act  that we all  have to live with in our lives.   It's been obvious that my seesaw has shifted positions.  In the spirit of my times, I had hoped to focus a lot on how living with one's feet in a denomination,  effects everything else. To that extent, it didn't work. I  missed diving down that road, and I couldn't enjoy the web scenery, cause I was to busy looking at the map, trying to figure out how to get back on that road..

It's been an interesting year as I live with increased health concerns and decreased capacities. Nothing major, but just the "normal" stages of life kicking me in the behunkas.  I hope that I find myself accepting these changes - both gracefully and even inquisitively. 
One of the things that I definitely believe is that there is no point in asking "why me?" - that the response to that is  "why not me?"    

And on that note - we'll see you down the road in just another mile or so.

There is a saying that "Justice delayed is justice denied."  Which of course means that we all want our injustice righted and as soon as possible.   Whether we are victims or those accused.

I am of course thinking of the case in Florida where a 17 year old unarmed male returning from a convenience store was shot by a gun toting man intent on stopping all crime in his neighborhood.   If it ended  here, we would  have a tragic and horrible event - but it went worse and became a complete tragedy.  The shooter claimed self-defense, and the police accepted that, and the shooter went home.

So the family of the dead child had to put away their grieving to put their energy into the legal and political aspects of the death.  Because officially their son was the aggressor and potential criminal, while the man who killed him was officially the victim of the alleged aggression.  I don't see how a family  can grieve and fight city hall at the same time.  To them, their son was killed - murdered by a man who seems to be getting away with it.
How can one deal with one pain, when you have to focus on another pain?  How does one heal even in the best of times?

and then there is the shooter and his family ...  It's clear to me that they are suffering as well, but with a different and no doubt more confusing  pain.  We can instinctively know   how a murdered child's family feels - how does a killer feel?

I've actually talked to folks who have killed and murdered, while they sat in jail wanting their day of
judgement - and I wonder if this man,who shot that child, thinks like they did.   If he feels the responsibility of
his deeds.  Or, if he deeply feels that he is the innocent victim, who only tried to do the right thing.  And when I think of murder, I of course think of the unsolved murder of my cousin.  Justice was delayed for some and denied for others.

When anyone is killed, whether by accident, manslaughter, or murder - there are no victors.   There is only the grieving.