A Grandma is a Grandma -- it's a title bestowed upon the person who fills the role. Having your child call her Grandma "Betty" can make things awkward for the child down the road. Imagine this conversation: "I like your sweater" "Betty gave it to me" "Who's Betty?" "She's like a Grandma but I'm not supposed to call her Grandma" "Why not?" "I don't know, I think she killed my other Grandma or something. My mom doesn't like her." Don't think kids don't jump to conclusions like that. They see and hear a lot more than you want them to, but they don't necessarily interpret it the way you mean it. You are not doing your child any favours by introducing this controversy to her world.


Our culture is full of steps and halfs and adopteds and fosters. We would all be better off thinking of them as parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, than trying to fit all of the "qualifiers". People get way too bogged down in semantics.

Orrrr.....you could just stop sending them pictures. There's a lot missing from this story. Was Betty the other woman and he married her as soon as Rose was out of the picture? Is Betty a nice person overall? Clearly there's a lot of animosity on both sides.

LW1: Sorry, the woman is NOT the grandma. If I were the lw, I'd not allow her to teach my child to call her Grandma or Grammie or such either since there's no biological connection. It would be different if my husband or I had a truly fond relationship with her. She could be Nanna Betty which would be a respectful form of address. My own sister's son married a woman who had two children. Those kids were already around 8 and 10 years of age. They called my sister Nanna Barb. It was perfectly acceptable to all parties. These were my sister's only grandchildren for years and she loved them and treated them as anyone would expect a loving grandparent to do. The name they called her didn't have anything to do with the relationship they established. If at some point I were to marry a man who has children and grandchildren, I would not expect them to call me Mom or Grandma unless they choose to. Their calling me or not calling me by those names would not hurt my feelings one way or the other.

LW2: I don't understand why this lw is so upset. She corrected misinformation. The friend listening in will form her own opinion. The cousin spouting misinformation has only herself to blame. I'm sure that's what really irks her - the fact that she embarassed herself by spouting such stupid remarks. Was the lw supposed to stand by quietly and allow this to go unchallenged? She'd look just as misinformed. Perhaps she could have been a bit more diplomatic in how she corrected the misinformation. But really, if someone actually quotes the page number of the source of her supposed information, you'd think she'd look it up and read it herself. Again, the cousin has only herself to blame. I wouldn't worry about it.

LW2: Why is everyone (including Margo) assuming that the bit about the "death panels" in the health care bill is 'misinformation?' Actually, it's in there...and I stumbled across a quote on a blog which puts it nicely: "I generally like Krauthammer, but he's an ass if he thinks there's no such thing as a “death panel” just because the words “death panel” don't appear in the bill that hasn't been written yet. Someone's going to have to make decisions on what qualifies people to recieve what treatments, and you can call it a commission, bureau, cabinet, task force or board — they will decide who lives and who dies. “Death panel” is as good a name as any." The real issue here, though, may not be what the health care bill does or doesn't say....it may be that some people have no inkling of the proper time and place for politics. My cousin married a woman who believes everyone is entitled to her opinion, and she tried to start a debate with me on this very subject. Needless to say, we don't agree and I was completely disgusted by her utter disregard for the relationship between me and her husband, who has been like a brother to me for 30 years.

Matt... have you actually read the bill? I love hearing people like you who read a few media quotes and claim that you really know about the bill and act like you've studies it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Obama--but the blatant lies about this bill (and specifically page 425) are hilarious.

The section of this bill that everyone is up in arms about is the Advanced care Planning Section... it has numerous sections that lay out as follows:
A. An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to. *no death stuff here...
B. An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses. *sounds pretty standard... Terry Schiavo taught us all about living wills, yes?
C. An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy. *good call, someone to act on your behalf!
D. The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations. *Information is key!
E. An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title. *Again, more information!!!

Now that last section has a lot of extra verbage... but it all boils down to four mains points:
(I) living wills
(II) durable power of attorney
(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment
(IV) health care proxies

Sounds like the government is making sure all people on Social Security have all their ducks in a row. Everyone person will have a will, have someone to make legal decision for them should they be unable to, every person shall be able to decide if they have any end-of-life or resuscitation orders (including termination for terminally ill patients, not just old people), and you have a proxy person to make medical decisions about your care should you be unable to.

So... this is the end of my rant. Hopefully at least one person reads it and gets educated! Read and learn, Matt. Read and learn from the source, not a rightwingnews.com comments section attached to an article entitled "People Telling Sarah Palin To Shut Up Should Shut Up." Done!

Re: Josh

I think the most reasonable advice is to calmly attempt to set the record straight. You don't have to "let someone have it" to make important points, and that normally just makes the person angry. Why not just be informed and point out what page 425 actually says? There's always a lot of heated rhetoric and disinformation associated with big political issues. The mature thing would be to present some facts and have a discussion.