Skip to main content

View Diary: How Same-Sex Marriage Would Have Resolved a $22,222.22 Moral Dilemma (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It should go to Caroline (23+ / 0-)

    And I think you know this in your heart, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the diary. And you certainly wouldn't have posted it here.

    We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. -- G.K. Chesterton

    by Keith Pickering on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 06:46:49 PM PST

    •  I thought that part was rhetorical (15+ / 0-)

      The point being that gay people, not having access to civil marriage, are at a disadvantage financially and otherwise before the law, a situation that ought to be rectified.

      The part about the "moral dilemma" was a flourish, the sort which might be found in a work by Mark Twain, etc.

      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~John Watson

      by FriendlyNeighbor on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 07:18:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're no Mark Twain. nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Horace Boothroyd III, Rieux
        •  More to the point, (7+ / 0-)

          neither is the diarist.

          Huckleberry Finn would have lost a fair portion of its punch if Twain had thrown in an epilogue: "Oh, by the way, down on my little homestead in a part of Missouri the Feds don't know about, we still have a few slaves of our own."

          •  No one is Mark Twain (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Susan from 29

            Including Mark Twain who's been dead for 100 years. But the diary is written with a lot of wit and care and the author doesn't deserve to be sniped at. Are you really asking for a diary to match the standards of one of the most important works of American literature?

            •  If he seriously (3+ / 0-)

              intends to defend his moral ugliness by pleading "Mark Twain did it too!", you're damn right I am.

              I'm curious: do you think the diarist's previous work is "written with a lot of wit and care"? Such as, say, this gem?

              As Treasurer of the United States, Mrs. Rios (or would it be Mrs. Gumataotao?  I never could get the rule straight for Hispanic names) has heretofore had a boring job.  On her first day in office, she signed her name.  There has not been much for her to do ever since.  It is not easy being a token.  Because the position is a do-nothing job, women have been assigned to that post for over sixty years (no self-respecting man would take it).  Recently, this position has been made to do double-duty, since more often than not of late, the Treasurer has also been Hispanic (or would that be “Latina”?  I haven’t gotten the rule straight on that one either).  In any event, she helps the fill two quotas, which is very important right now, inasmuch as there has been a lot of talk lately about all the white males in Obama’s administration.

              So, she mostly sits around all day looking at her signature on Federal Reserve Notes, and wondering if there isn’t something else she might do to make herself useful.  Technically, she advises the Director of the Mint (“I think the new quarters should have a little more serration”) and the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (“Make sure my signature is just as large as that of the Secretary of the Treasury”).  Her degree in Romance languages comes in handy, just in case the Mint should misspell e pluribus unum, or the Bureau should misspell Annuit coeptis or Novus ordo seclorum, in which case she will be sure to catch it.  Mostly though, life goes on without her.

              But that may soon change.  If the president decides to have a trillion dollar coin minted, he will need to consult with her on this matter.  Much in the way the lion turned to the mouse to get a thorn removed from his paw, so too will the most powerful man on earth have to turn to the most useless bureaucrat in Washington to save the country from going into default.  When that day comes, it will be a much needed source of pride for women and Hispanics everywhere.

              Peachy, right? "Wit and care," don't you think?

              And then there's this evo-psych excretion:

              Natural Aversion

              Part of the problem begins with the word "homophobe," which, being based on the word "phobia," suggests fear.  But fear is not the emotion you experienced.  Rather, you felt revulsion.  And this was probably nature's way of directing you away from having sex with men, so that you will have sex with women, which is, from an evolutionary point of view, more likely to be reproductively successful.

              Some would claim that you are trying to repress your own homosexual tendencies.  In some sense, this is true.  If you had absolutely no tendency to have sex with a man, the feeling of revulsion would be unnecessary.  In other words, you would feel no revulsion at seeing a man kiss a tree, although it might strike you as pretty damn strange.  And that is because you have no tendency to have sex with a tree.  Nature does not need to steer you away from making love to an oak.

              The one thing in this world that looks most like a female is a male.  A tree does not look like a female, and so a male is not likely to want to have sex with it. So, nature did not need to take steps to prevent such activity.  No one ever looked at a tree and thought he saw a woman.  But everyone has had the experience of looking at a man and thinking it was a woman.  So, nature produces in most men a feeling a revulsion to counter this tendency to have sex with another man.

              Needless to say, this mechanism does not always work properly, and thus we have homosexuality.

              Witty, right? Careful, yes?

              Clearly everyone should heed your warnings and get off this poor diarist's back; clearly (s)he doesn't "deserve to be sniped at," because it's not as if his/her work, demonstrated up and down this comment section (including multiple links to the above two examples of hateful trash), demonstrates overt drooling bigotry. "Sniping" at that? Perish the thought!

              As an alternative hypothesis, would you entertain the possibility that you have fundamentally misread the diary we are all responding to, and that—as in numerous other things (s)he has posted, including comments on this very page—his/her poisonous hatred is laid out in that diary for the world to see?

              •  I wasn't aware of his (0+ / 0-)

                previous work here. It worthless, offensive drivel. I responded to your comment without having read the rest of the comments on the page. If I had I would have understood your comment was not meant literary criticism.

                Now if you want to continue to blow my head off, go right ahead.

                •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kyril
                  I wasn't aware of his previous work here. It worthless, offensive drivel.
                  I'm glad you see that.

                  My point is that if you re-read the diary, and especially its conclusion, you'd find (I hope) that it's little better.

                  •  Knowing the context of the writing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kyril

                    I now think that the author isn't much interested in the moral dilemma, I think the author is telling an anecdote with a smirk on his face the point of which is no more than, Hey, gang, look at the lucky windfall I got.

                    It has some value but mainly as an illustration of human nature. I mean by that most people do what they can get away with. In a way it's to his credit he's aware of the moral question. On the other hand all his awareness leads to is a joke.

                    Moral dilemmas can be notoriously problematic, and thus the issue remains unresolved to this day.
                    This is meant as punchline and nothing more.
                •  As a P.S. (3+ / 0-)

                  (far more to issues that are discussed downthread than to you):

                  It's actually possible to read that nasty Treasurer diary as "irony," if one is willing to squint really hard with the aim of construing it as satirical. Surely such a reading strains credulity far beyond the breaking point, but I can just imagine someone claiming that that work is a parody of anti-Latina bigotry rather than the real thing.

                  Which suggests a worrisome way in which a right-wing fuck can fool (and, I fear, just has fooled) DKos admins into promoting a fundamentally hateful work on this website: cloak the hatred in a thin veneer of "literary irony." Do that, and it appears that some well-meaning Kossacks will stoop to defend it. (Again, that's not primarily referring to you.)

                  Another consequence is the plausible deniability that the diarist rode through several comments on this thread.

                  Ugly and troubling, IMO.

        •  If you were a more careful reader (0+ / 0-)

          you would have noted prior to delivering your zinger that I did not claim to be Mark Twain myself. Since you're not...

          Whatevs.

          Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~John Watson

          by FriendlyNeighbor on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:51:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            After reviewing this diarist's previous work (and his/her response to inquiries on this thread), do you still think the anti-gay conclusion to the diary is a defensible resort to Twain-ish irony—rather than, for example, a basically accurate admission of homophobic bigotry?

            Which is to say: given the larger context of this person's output, do you still think that the above ending is "rhetorical," such that the diary is unobjectionable?

            •  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril, AllisonInSeattle

              And thank you for your non-inflammatory comment.

              I plead guilty to putting the most charitable spin on the diarist's work.

              I am unfamiliar with the diarist's previous work, however, if the diarist claims that the story is true and not a humorous exaggeration, then from his/her own mouth he/she is condemned and I withdraw my previous charitable reading.

              I apologize to all who were confused or bothered by my overgenerous assumptions.

              Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~John Watson

              by FriendlyNeighbor on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:38:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Moral dilemma (9+ / 0-)

        Stealing a widow's inheritance isn't a moral delimma.  

        Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

        by lostboyjim on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:24:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't that the point? (5+ / 0-)

          She isn't a "widow", and the Diarist was clear that she should have been.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:25:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not by the languaged used in the post IMO (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lost and Found, kyril
            the Diarist was clear that she should have been.

            "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

            by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:40:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  He still took her money, didn't he? (6+ / 0-)

            Isn't that the point?

            "It's clear that morally and ethically you should have this sweet, sweet, cash.  But I'm still going to take it because I legally can."

            Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

            by lostboyjim on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:46:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes he did. Not something I would support (7+ / 0-)

              There is a "but".

              My take from the piece was the stark message that we need full marriage equality, and we need it now.

              As for the machinations of family inheritance, long lost cousins, large inheritances and an ambulance chasing, smooth talking attorney ..... well.

              That is a moral issue for the Diarist, but not the point of the Diary.

              Anyway, that was simply my take on it.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:49:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not the point? (10+ / 0-)

                "Yes, with the help of a homophobic legal system, I've just bilked a grieving widow out of twenty-two thousand dollars that her dead wife left her. Now let me lecture you about the need for legal changes to prevent people like me from doing what I just did."

                How exactly does that "moral issue" not debase the entire diary?

                •  Well it's not helping (6+ / 0-)

                  to use words like "bilked", even though I get the substance.

                  The point is that he could legally do what he legally did. As I have said, there are all sorts of moral issues with that, but the issue for us is that it could be done.

                  I wasn't there when the attorney made his pitch, so I have no way of knowing how that went down. What is clear is that the Diarist knows that it was wrong.

                  The substantive issue remains the fact that we need to put a final end to this kind of thing, and we need to do it very quickly, much as the President said in his Inaugural Address.

                  If the Diary was written to serve that point, it did so very well and the "immorality" of the Diarist .... That just serves to underline the point.

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  Who is twigg?

                  by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:02:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ech. (5+ / 0-)

                    bilk:

                    1. a. To defraud, cheat, or swindle: made millions bilking wealthy clients on art sales.
                    b. To evade payment of: bilk one's debts.
                    2. To thwart or frustrate: "Fate . . . may be to a certain extent bilked" (Thomas Carlyle).
                    3. To elude.
                    I think I'll stand by that one.
                    The point is that he could legally do what he legally did.
                    There are all kinds of ways in which it is legal to severely abuse GLBTs and other minorities who are widely despised in this country. I can't say that I agree that the most salient "point" about a diary in which a Kossack fairly brags about having taken advantage of a homophobic legal system to steal $22,000 from a grieving lesbian widow is the legal niceties of the matter.
                    As I have said, there are all sorts of moral issues with that....
                    And as I have implied but am now stating outright, pretending that abstract philosophizing is somehow more important and worthy of note than those "moral issues" are is morally suspect in itself. This diarist has openly and unapologetically confessed to an act that is flatly an outrage, and you are clearly not terribly outraged. WTF?

                    This is not an airy soapbox hypothetical about The Serious Legal Issues Posed By Marriage Inequality. It's the story of a major real-life theft, told by one of the thieves. Please wake up.

                    What is clear is that the Diarist knows that it was wrong.
                    No, I've already explained why that's incorrect. If the diarist knew that what (s)he did was wrong, (s)he would give the money to Caroline. (S)he has in fact not given the money to Caroline. Ergo it is not clear "that the Diarist knows that it was wrong."

                    You're working awfully hard to absolve (or excuse your disinterest in noticing the ugliness of) a person who has openly stolen thousands of dollars from a widow's bequest.

                    If the Diary was written to serve that point, it did so very well....
                    The hell it did. If the diarist thinks that what happened to Caroline was so damned unjust that we should take legal action to prevent it from happening again, why TF has (s)he not lifted a finger to ensure that it didn't happen, insofar as the diarist can prevent it, right here?

                    As a result, "the 'immorality' of the Diarist" (and you can kindly stick those scare-quotes up your rear end) in fact directly undermines the point you would prefer to believe (s)he was making.

                    •  If this is what you think: (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mrkvica, Purple Priestess
                      You're working awfully hard to absolve (or excuse your disinterest in noticing the ugliness of) a person who has openly stolen thousands of dollars from a widow's bequest.
                      As a result, "the 'immorality' of the Diarist" (and you can kindly stick those scare-quotes up your rear end) in fact directly undermines the point you would prefer to believe (s)he was making.
                      Then you are simply blinded by your own view, and not listening.

                      Please show me the "theft" of which you speak. There was none, there was the application of existing law, and you are doing a dis-service to the LGBT community if you simply refuse to stand back and discuss the issues accurately.

                      You are doing nothing, by your persistent personal attacks on me, to demonstrate any other than your own inability to form an argument we can work with.

                      Do you think our opponents give a flying fuck for morality. Get down off that high horse, before you fall, and construct something that prevents this from happening, rather than simply railing against something you cannot hope to control.

                      We are done here.

                      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                      Who is twigg?

                      by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:37:14 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the theft is a moral one. (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Lost and Found, Renee, cai, kyril

                        I'll refrain from commenting further.

                        "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

                        by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:59:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh? (4+ / 0-)
                        Please show me the "theft" of which you speak.
                        The diarist took more than $22,000 that rightfully belonged to Caroline and pocketed it for him/herself. That's theft. It isn't legally theft because the shakedown that was employed in the diarist's favor was based on the legal system's bigotry against GLBT people, but it is theft nonetheless.

                        Theft is not merely a legal category. Intent as you are on denying this, it's a moral category as well.

                        Have you noticed that your attempt at a debater's point ("it's not legally theft!") is founded on homophobia in just the same way that—though, thankfully, much more abstractly than—the $22K theft itself is? Homophobic law allows (1) the diarist to steal twenty-two grand and (2) you to think you can win this debater's point. Both efforts are seriously ugly.

                        ...there was the application of existing law....
                        Oh, well, that excuses everything! How can "the application of existing law" ever result in innocent people being bilked out of property that they own?

                        Given that it is unanimously agreed that the law, in this instance, is unjust, how in the world can you seriously appeal to that very body of law as justification for anything you or the diarist are saying? It's mindblowing.

                        Do you think our opponents give a flying fuck for morality.
                        "Our opponents"? What "our", pray tell, would that be?

                        We are here discussing an episode that amounts to a blatant and not even disputed use of homophobia as a weapon to steal $22,000 from an innocent lesbian widow. Charged with taking that seriously, you have made excuses for the diarist, attempted to distract attention from the seriousness of what (s)he did, and now argued that the taking does not constitute theft. To the extent that the phrase "our opponents" is supposed to refer to homophobes and those who aid and abet them, why exactly should one not conclude, in light of your refusal to deal squarely with this incident, that that phrase includes you?

                        construct something that prevents this from happening....
                        Why do you think that providing excuses for people like the diarist does anything "construct"ive at all?

                        I'm communicating well-deserved scorn both for homophobia profiteers like the diarist and apologists like you. Creating a social discourse in which neither part of that is accepted seems rather constructive, actually.

                        •  Using their logic (5+ / 0-)

                          the Jews never had their property stolen by the Nazi's. Since it was legal.

                          "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

                          by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:47:45 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I will report this. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Susan from 29, Purple Priestess

                          Accusations of homophobia are bannable.

                          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                          Who is twigg?

                          by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:01:24 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  You go too far. (6+ / 0-)

                          Creating a social discourse in which ANY discussion other than virulent and unmitigated condemnation is equally virulently condemned, is too extreme.  We need room to canvass the nuances of any given topic, and your over-the-top personalizing is acting to prevent that.  I think you should disagree more civilly.  No one here is ADVOCATING robbing widows and orphans.  

                          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

                          by lgmcp on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:03:05 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lgmcp, kyril

                            I'm happy to countenance less-vituperative criticism of the diarist. But that's not what twigg provided. Instead, (s)he did little but distract, deflect, and dismiss whenever the central moral point came up. (S)he brooked no criticism at all, but instead provided a mere hand-waving reference to how said central point was "a moral issue" for the diarist. That, I submit, is objectionable, if less so than the diary itself.

                            Greeting the diary with quiet opprobrium rather than hot scorn seems to me perfectly acceptable... though, in this particular case (and especially in light of this diarist's bigoted history), it seems to me necessary for someone to provide the latter. Happily, a meaningful number of us in this comment section have done so.

                        •  But what about Betty? You know, the one with (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lgmcp, twigg, Purple Priestess, elfling

                          whom Sandy spent so much of her life. If this had been a legally recognized marriage, she would have received a settlement at the time of the dissolution. But same sex marriage was not legal, she got nothing.

                          It was Betty who instigated the challenge to the will. The diarist (I am going to assume for the sake of discussion that the situation was, as presented, accurate although just having completed the probate of my husband's estate, I do doubt the entire story) was one of four possible heirs.

                          It is the absence of legally recognized same sex marriage that allows the entire question to arise. Perhaps that is where the focus should be instead of making this all about finding homophobia where there is only a difference of opinion.

                          Only in the darkness can you see the stars - Martin Luther King, Jr

                          by Susan Grigsby on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:56:53 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Er, (3+ / 0-)

                            Betty and Caroline themselves may be engaged in "a difference of opinion"—though I'm sure they, like any ex-spouse and widow(er) disputing an inheritance, experience it somewhat differently than that. To whatever extent Betty can legally demonstrate that her claims to the estate are superior to Caroline's, I certainly have no objection to them; I think we can be rather confident that "Caroline should get nothing because she's a scummy lesbian" is not Betty's argument.

                            The diarist, his cousin, and their representatives are in no such innocent position. They are well aware that the only reason they stand to get anything is because Caroline (like, for that matter, Betty) has an entirely reasonable fear of being denied every penny of the estate because of a homophobic legal system. In that context, the diarist (especially in recent comments) has openly sneered that (s)he feels no compunction about pocketing the money that one or the other of the deceased's partners is very obviously entitled to.

                            This diary details a major social problem that has been inflicted by marriage inequality. The diarist—who has a DKos history of horrific racism and homophobic pseudoscience—is laughing about that problem all the way to the bank. That's not "a difference of opinion," it's a sneering homophobic fact.

                          •  I really think that if you are so persuaded of the (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vcmvo2, twigg, Purple Priestess, elfling

                            problems this diarist presents you should report it to the admins instead of calling other posters homophobic.

                            If you feel he is a troll you should definitely report him.

                            But that does not automatically make people who disagree with your position homophobic. Regardless of the intent of the diarist, the diary does discuss an issue that needs to be addressed.

                            Only in the darkness can you see the stars - Martin Luther King, Jr

                            by Susan Grigsby on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:36:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kyril
                            you should report it to the admins....
                            I did do a bit to assist cai's attempt to file such a report. At this point, alas, the report appears to have been to no avail.
                            ...instead of calling other posters homophobic.
                            Despite twigg's declaration to that end, I did not call him/her homophobic, nor do I believe (s)he is. (The diarist is another story.) Instead, my criticism of twigg referenced "homophobes and those who aid and abet them":
                            To the extent that the phrase "our opponents" is supposed to refer to homophobes and those who aid and abet them, why exactly should one not conclude, in light of your refusal to deal squarely with this incident, that that phrase includes you?
                            And I stand by that. I submit that twigg's continual attempts to deflect attention and criticism of the diarist's misconduct aided and abetted homophobia; they are therefore themselves blameworthy and are proper targets of criticism.
                            But that does not automatically make people who disagree with your position homophobic.
                            Of course not. Nonetheless, it is objectionable to throw chaff (e.g., "That is a moral issue for the Diarist, but not the point of the Diary") into the air in an attempt to obstruct criticism of instances of homophobia such as this diary—even if the chaff-thrower isn't him/herself homophobic. twigg's work here was a defense of the diary, and it was notably unwarranted.
                          •  It is the aid and abet homophobes part (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rieux

                            that allows the homophobia to prosper because when we point something out as homophobic instead of reassessing the values therein they close ranks.

                            "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

                            by Horace Boothroyd III on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:04:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  "Clear"? (10+ / 0-)

            What part of pocketing $22 grand that belongs to that widow "clear"ly communicates the diarist's recognition of the legitimacy of her claim?

            The diarist is weeping over the need for legal same-sex marriage... all the way to the bank. It's nauseating.

            •  I thought he had asked (3+ / 0-)

              for advice on what to do with the money.

              He seems to have got some ... give it back.

              I have no idea if he is weeping or not, but he wrote the Diary so he clearly isn't happy with the outcome.

              Also ... None of us knows whether this story is even true.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:13:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ? (4+ / 0-)
                I thought he had asked for advice on what to do with the money.
                Really? Where? There's no such request in the diary.
                I have no idea if he is weeping or not, but he wrote the Diary so he clearly isn't happy with the outcome.
                And the whole point of the facetious construction "weeping (or laughing) all the way to the bank" is to dispute the value of any such claimed emotion, in light of the fact that the diarist is twenty-two grand richer. It's hard to take that play for sympathy seriously, though (sigh) it appears you are.
                None of us knows whether this story is even true.
                The diarist has been asked that question in this comment thread, and (s)he has answered that "The story is true."

                You seem to be dancing around a bit. Nonetheless, the moral demands on us audience members aren't an enormous amount more ambiguous than the demands on someone in the diarist's position. (S)he has a blatant moral obligation to give the money to Caroline, and we have a nearly-as-blatant obligation to communicate outrage and shame when (s)he doesn't. The third level isn't all that murky, either.

      •  I think this is all fiction (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rieux

        Seriously, "Betty" and "Caroline"?  It's like when Andrew, Bob, and Charles are battling over title to Whiteacre, which borders Blackacre.  It's a law school essay question.

        I won't speculate as to the author's motives, but I do not believe this recounts true events.

        Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

        by milton333 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:19:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I changed the names (0+ / 0-)

          Whenever I write a diary about something that really happened, I always change the names.  I try to pick names that are sufficiently dissimilar to avoid confusion, and that are not ambiguous as to gender.  And, more for variety than anything else, I try to avoid using names that I have already used in previous stories.  It did not occur to me that using names that have alphabetically sequential initials would give the story an artificial flavor, like a “law school essay.”  I will avoid that mistake in the future.

          Other than that, the story is true.  Only the part about my being in a moral quandary as to what to do with the money was facetious.

    •  Nice to see the moral choice represented. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lost and Found, cai, mrkvica

      This health care system is a moral atrocity. Dr. Ralphdog

      by AllisonInSeattle on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 07:25:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site