I get the feeling that the administrators of TPM don't understand (or perhaps don't care) how the funeral for our dearly departed Reader Blogs at the Cafe should be run -- why it is important, what a positive purpose it serves.

For starters a decent funeral has to be on a day certain at a specific time. So that everyone  who cared about the departed can gather together in a specific place, for a mercifully finite time -- to send the departed on his or her way in a respectful, ritualized way.

This part of the 2-3 step process is always led by a MINISTER who welcomes everyone who showed up, offers some comforting remarks -- citing the lifetime contributions of the deceased, for example. A few members of the family are invited to do the same. Then the attendees participate in some communal responses and/or some singing; and, finally, THE MINISTER says a few closing prayers that commend the soul of the departed into the care of a more benign Being than he or she experienced in this world.

In some cultures and religions, there is a short graveside service for the family that immediately follows the large one. The MINISTER attends that service, too, repeating the commendation to elsewhere, after which those who knew the departed best throw something symbolic -- flowers, clods of earth, whatever -- into the yawning grave, after which everyone leaves, simultaneously, to let the gravediggers get on with filling in the hole.

Finally, most of the community reconvenes somewhere else for the third, final and most important part of the process: the informal, more meaningful recollections of the departed that detail the truth -- the good and the bad, the ridiculous and the sublime -- in short, showing the departed the real respect of telling the truth about his or her life experience and relationships.

A few hours later, after phone numbers and email addresses have been exchanged by those who want to stay in touch, everyone leaves -- everyone very sad, but also satisfied, ready for life to go on, without the departed, though keeping his or her memory close, ever after.

This process -- that is completed IN ONE DAY OVER A PERIOD OF JUST A FEW HOURS -- is necessary for -- dare I say it? -- a healthy closure and a shift into the gear of ongoing life.

This send-off of Reader Blogs at the Cafe has been the worst funeral I've ever attended; Josh and company have failed miserably in both arranging and "marshalling" a dignified process to commemorate the Cafe.

1) We weren't given a day certain at a specific time.
Oh, sure -- we were told the funeral would be last Friday but no specific hour was cited. Therefore many people changed their personal plans, took time off from work, etc. so that they could show up on Friday. But nothing happened; hours passed but the Minister was AWOL, and sent no message about when he, or a substitute might show up so that the service could get under way and be done. People began to drift away to fulfill other obligations, but kept checking back in, not wanting to miss the event.

2) The same bizarre scenario pertained on Saturday and Sunday. More and more people tired of being on hold and so more and more people faded away, without communal closure.

3) By Monday the crowd was small; the people within it strained from their determination to be there, but exhausted by the prolonged limbo of it all.

4) Yesterday, with still no word from the Minister or his acolyte, the ceremonial props started disappearing. Most of the prayer books and hymnal were boxed up and put away, although some attendees knew where to find them and opened a few of them again. Then the music shut down. In an echoing space, the few faithful were left, uncomforted, uncertain and unattended.

Had they only known, the wake was already underway, elsewhere. But not in one location, but several.

I've stopped by this morning to offer a ride to anyone who wants one to attend one or more of the various gatherings taking place at DagBlog, TPM-Aholics and Once Upon A TPM. It's late for y'all, in terms of participating in a wake. Enough time has passed that the mood at those venues has shifted into ongoing experience in real time.

But that means there IS ongoing community -- alive and well. Which surely beats waiting for Godot in an empty hall. So, c'mon... ... it's time to go .... so we may go on, together.

Note: I can't sign in to comment anymore, so please don't be offended that I cannot reply to any of your comments. 

Take care.

Yet I do not speak in what is commonly -- if erroneously -- accepted as a one-size-fits-all "southern accent." What I do speak is the American equivalent of BBC English .... which is softened by a southern intonation that is further honed into something identifiable by sociolect, as a subset of dialect.  Many, many southerners can say the same. Stephen Colbert, for example, is a man who might be from anywhere  -- unless one recognizes the specific combinations of intonation and sociolect in his speech.

 Accent/Intonation/Sociolect/Dialect. What do I mean by these distinctions?

 Accent refers to the way in which a word is, or words in a phrase are pronounced. Intonation, on the other hand, refers to emphasis - the syllabic emphasis within a word, or the word(s) that are emphasized within a phrase. So accent, then, is a sound, while intonation is a cadence or rhythm.

 That's the basic distinction but, of course, it's a little trickier than that. To be southern in terms of speech patterns also means - and this is a really important part of understanding a southern voice- not only which words are selected for use but how they are strung together.

 Which brings us to sociolect as compared to dialect. Dialect is language usage common, even specific to a particular region; whereas, sociolect is language usage common to a particular group within that region.

 I heard a good example of this, just an hour ago.

 A friend of mine stopped by - a person born in Atlanta who has spent her adult life in Charleston. 

Observing that my male "Morris" cat was looking decidedly tentative at the trough, she might have said - if she were strictly BBC/ American version: "Harry's lost weight; is he ill?" Or -- if she spoke in the clichéd southern accent believed to be ubiquitous by people in other parts of the country or the world -- she might have said (acknowledging the assumption by "people from off" that every southerner necessarily sins by dropping end consonants): "Harry, darlin' boy - you look like somethin' that's been rode hard and put up wet." But instead, because she has an authentic southern voice -- one which is based on both intonation and sociolect rather than on accent and dialect -- she said, conversationally: "Harry - are you fasting? If so, is it for a cause I should endorse?"

 Do "y'all" see what I'm talking about?

Ms. Templesman

Claims Adjustment Supervisor

Just Say No Health Insurance, Inc.

23588 Cartel Parkway

Alexandria, VA 21351-0000

Dear Ms. Templesman: 

I write in reference to Claim #1297-5576-342-22-015.

My JSNHI group number, ID number and PPO policy code are noted on the attached claim, which has been returned to my gynecologist, "denied."

As the monthly payments for my policy are current, my annual deductible is paid in full, and I fork out co-pays at doctors' offices as I go, I wish to file a formal complaint against your company for denying this claim, particularly when the reason offered for the denial by one of your staff adjusters is so patently absurd.

As you will note by reviewing the file notes, Ms. Templesman, my claim for a standard annual gynecological exam was denied on the basis of a documented "pre-existing condition." As I was not aware that I had a pre-existing condition in this category, I called to enquire what that pre-existing condition might be.

Imagine my astonishment when I was told by your representative that my pre-existing condition is listed, in this context, as "MENOPAUSE.".... 

MENOPAUSE???? (This would be hilarious if it were not so insane and in fact, I did laugh out loud when I thought she was just an unusually good-natured adjuster who was joking.).

Sadly, though, she was not joking. In fact, she informed me quite severely that "This is not a laughing matter."  Well, now that I've received the bill for the full amount from the gynecologist -- a bill, btw, now stamped OVERDUE -- I suppose I see her point, if from the opposite side of the lens. I agree -- the bill I've been sent is no laughing matter, especially when it must be paid by me --  a woman who is already coughing up (don't get excited now - that's not an allusion to an undisclosed medical condition I've been attempting to hide from JSNHI; it's just the figure of speech that came to mind) when I am already paying $932 per month, paid off a $2500 deductible and have a $35 per visit co-pay.

Call me naïve, Ms. Templesman, but you'd think that since I have an annual obligation to pay JSNHI more than $13, 684.00 -- before the company will pay ANY claim I make -- that fact might  result in a quick settlement for claim of "only" $400. 

Instead, it seems to have incited real resistance, which I do not and will not accept.  

The larger point - the important point - I wish to make, however, is that what JSNHI seems to saying -- without actually saying it -- is that no woman who is a policy holder with JSNHI, but who has had a hysterectomy, is qualified, any longer, to be reimbursed for an annual gynecological examination. Are you then, effectively stating that, as a matter of policy -- simply because we can no longer have children -- that none of us will be approved for reimbursement for the standard screenings that detect forms of cancer, as well as other forms of infection or disease? 

If so, Ms. Templesman - if this is a new JSNHI policy - then I am confused about your corporation's business plan. Why would you nickel and dime women to this egregious degree, when we, as a gender, represent over half of your customer base? It is statistically documented that your industry already charges women more than three times what you charge men of similar ages, with similar medical histories, for policies. Now, in addition to that disparity, JSNHI is prepared to not only charge women much more, but provide them with less coverage? 

Question: are you refusing to cover annual prostate exams for men who have had vasectomies? Because if you are not denying them that essentially parallel coverage, then you might consider the bottom-line damage (sorry again for poorly-chosen phrasing) JSNHI will suffer if @ 35% of your customer base takes its business elsewhere, in protest.

 Don't think for a minute, Ms. Temlesman, that women are not prepared to do this; in fact, tell the powers that be to wrap their actuarial minds around the fact that a lot of women I know, across the country, are thinking very seriously about dropping their health insurance, altogether - not because they are indulging in fits of ill-advised pique, Ms. Templesman, but because they simply can't afford the cost, anymore.  

 Therefore, I suggest, quite sincerely, that the wiser alternative would be for JSNHI to review its policies and correct the egregious disparities between costs and coverage for men, versus costs and coverage for women. Otherwise, be advised: you will be slammed by the Mother of all class action suits, and we will ultimately win.... Or at least our heirs will win, as we ourselves may be dead, long before the claim is settled, having succumbed to undiagnosed diseases that, if caught in time, would have been relatively inexpensive to treat, and relatively assured of being completely cured. 

In the meantime, your thoughtful response and timely correction of this denied claim will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Susan Ravenel Rutledge / 5 1/2 Legare Street/ Charleston, SC / 29401

The printer hummed and clicked, smoothly sucking in blank paper and spitting out the carefully-crafted letters Susan had written during the past week. Letters she had considered writing, depending on the Addressee, for a long time. Letters she had avoided writing, much less mailing, until ....until not writing/mailing them seemed more self-sabotaging than facing the risk of sounding: a) loony/whiny/desperate/pitiful or .... b) other.

 The printer stopped. Susan retrieved the letters, methodically matching them, one by one, to the pre-addressed envelopes she had already printed. Matched sets were accumulating as a stack on her desk so that she might sign them in cobalt blue ink flowing from her grandfather's fountain pen with its left-handed nib -- just because.

When the last letters were matched to their envelopes, Susan sat down at her desk to proofread the lot before adding her signature. When they were complete she would fold them in thirds and then insert them into their envelopes which she would seal by moistening the glue strip with a damp sponge she had placed on a saucer within reach, next to a box of paper clips. The whole process felt quite ceremonial, if a bit compulsive, she thought.... 

Perhaps this is what it felt like to be the President when an important bill crossed his desk for signature - when all the "compromises" had been made, when every parsed line item "i" had been dotted and every "t" had been crossed  so that - let the chips fall where they might -- nothing remained but to officially enact the legislation to which the documents before him pertained and, thereafter, call it - without a blush -- a win.

 But at the thought of her President, Susan sighed. She had procrastinated about this letter to President Obama - although in truth, among all of them, it was the most recent of those needing to be written and the easiest among them to write.  After all-- a letter to a President did not involve a personal relationship, even when the decisions the president was taking affected her, quite personally. Nonetheless, the tone of a letter to the president was important: it must be direct, but also respectful. The office mattered, more than the man, or the woman who might one day occupy the office. And manners mattered, always, although apparently, in the age of the blogosphere, that consideration was becoming less important than it had once been ....

 Had she succeeded in establishing the right tone, the appropriate degree of deference, without obsequiousness, due the president of a democratic union of states? 

Susan picked up the letter, adjusted her glasses and began to read:

********************************************************************

 The Right Honorable, Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 2010-1600 

Sir:

I will not waste your time with frivolities - you are a busy man. Therefore, please note that, in addition to the cover letter you are reading, there are only two more pages attached, although both of them will require your immediate attention:

The first is a one-page "to do" list which I trust you will read carefully -- perhaps even repeatedly -- as I took great care to cull it down to only those shifts in strategy/policy/legislative action that really are absolutely necessary, Sir -- right now. 

I  am aware, Sir, that the list may hit some hot buttons for you. Getting rid of Geithner and Summers, while hiring Elizabeth Warren and re-instating Glass--Steagall will be.... embarrassing. While closing Gitmo, withdrawing from both Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and cutting back on the defense budget by at least 50% will .... set the Right crazy and perhaps, in consequence, put you in increased personal danger. (I do worry about that, Sir, but you did, after all, sign up for the job and the risk that goes with it. So, in for a penny, in for a pound, eh?)

Moving along: it is also necessary that you shut down off-shore drilling completely, despite the oil  industry's hue and cry. Never mind - with all the money you've just saved from warmongering and oil despoliation enabling, a similar amount of money can be invested in job stimulus, green energies and renewed infrastructure...  It's OK if you start small by doing something small for the little people; for example, Sir, how about caps on medical insurance policy rates that go into effect, right now?

I know.... I really do know, Sir - that implementing this list will be REALLY HARD. But you knew this job would be difficult when you signed up for it. Just as you expect us to be realists, so we expect you to get real: the Republicans, Sir, aren't buying into your bipartisan approach and the result is that we are buying the farm. And that is going to have an impact on you in 2012.  You need to trust me in this, Sir -- in the end implementing the line items on this list will be a major time and angst saver for you. Your base will be appeased and therefore supportive of you when you will, in fact, really need their support, in 2012.  Because, no matter your wooing of them, Sir, the Right and the confused will not be there for you in 2012. So it behooves you to marshall your base, whatever it takes.

Just sayin'. 

Therefore, following this handy list to the letter (no pun intended) will give you far more time - after the hue and cry quiets down - to devote to your re-election campaign.  Personally, Sir, unless you implement this list, I would advise you to give up re-election as a pipe dream. But hope springs eternal  and you do seem to be a true believer in the audacity of hope (which has taken on a new meaning for some of us, Sir) ... as well as in you and in your team.... so --  far be it from me to try to dissuade you from pursuing whatever.  All I'm saying is that, if you're going there, do give yourself the maximum time possible, and leave the governing of the country, in the meantime, to those of us who are actually affected by the outcome, in the interim. Capiche?

Now, about money:

2) The second page, Mr. President,  is, as you will observe, an invoice.

The amount due represents my request for a complete refund of all the money I contributed to your '08 election campaign.

 I believe this to be a fair request, Sir, as I did without myself over a prolonged period of time so that I could contribute every month to your "Change We Can Believe In" campaign. Without dwelling on it, Sir, a more accurate slogan, given your affinities and priorties to date -- might have been, if Truth in Advertising had real meaning to you:  Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est la Meme Chose .....

But, rather than listening to me run on about the FUNDAMENTAL SENSE OF DISAPPOINTMENT, if not BETRAYAL that many of us feel about you, Sir, please just add your John Hancock to this invoice, and be prepared to do the same for others who may contact you with the same request. Rubber stamp mine today, if you will, Sir, remembering the advice of efficiency experts who say never handle a piece of paper twice. Your secretary can then send it on to Accounting in General Services, with a personal note to EXPEDITE.

 For their convenience, I have included my bank account information so that I may be paid by wire transfer, as waiting for a check by snail mail is, among other things, so yesterday. Also, I am thinking of your best interests --  if, due to any unforeseen delay -- for example, like the one I am experiencing waiting for my tax refund -- I had to phone you repeatedly in a collection mode, it would be embarrassing for you. Heavens - that scenario would put you in  the embarrassing position of saying "The check is in the mail." 

Anyway -- best regards and good luck in all your endeavors, Sir,

 Susan  Rutledge Ravenel

5 ½ Tradd Street

Charleston, SC 29401

PPS -- So that we're all on the same page, as it were, you might ask your secretary to copy my "honeydo" list for distribution to the Vice President,  to each Senator and member of the House, to each Supreme Court Justice and to every leading anchor of the MSM. Just to "keep it simple" not that I would ever call you Stupid; maybe other things, but never that.

http://wendystaebler.posterous.com/

A fog-bound sloop, trapped in dense soup, then deep aground;

Broached mast abeam, she foundered fast, and then was down'd;               

None but the gulls could hear her hull's now muffled sound

As sharp-toothed shoals tore gruesome holes where she lay, bound.

A reclaimed wreck, keelhauled ashore, her hulk was driven

To boatyard hell, where dire neglect would be a given

This graceful ghost, once so admired, now gored and shriven

Her paint apeel on blistered steel, her screw rust-riven;

A sailor's heart was torn apart, by her condition;

He vowed to plate, and seal and paint her from perdition.

He would not rest, until her best, found new edition --

She was his dream, his Lorelei, his apparition.

A year went by, and every day, her lover labored;

His goal was clear, his eye was sharp, and he had majored

In boat design, marine repair and skills that favored

A resurrection of lost dreams that might be savored.

I  saw them last, when from her mast, he draped a banner

Which unfurled, flapped, then caught the wind, and in the manner

Of yachts or yore, proclaimed her name, plus his, as planner

Of trips to come, to ports unknown, sailed by the scanner. 

The lesson learned? Why do we wait, when life is quirky?

When choosing life, or chasing death, is all that's murky?