Thanks for your kind wishes, guys. :) It is my experience that only people who feel confident about plants enjoy receiving them, so I didn't want to go too crazy with the idea. I am usually pretty good at putting myself in other people's shoes, but it's difficult for me to tell how un/enthusiastic the "average" person is about this kind of gesture. Green thumbs seem to be a recessive gene (lol), but it does seem to be a trait that gets passed down reliably. I bet I have some green cousins and just don't realize it. It does feel more comforting, with something alive. I don't know why. Maybe the plants just make it easier for us to recognize the deep continuity of life. Thanks so much for encouraging me. @ pug Thanks for the quick response. I've been a bit teary. ^_^' @ tropicbreeze Good thing Hoyas are so self-reliant. They're like the cats of the plant world. Probably carnosa is an easy enough plant not to be a worry even to black thumbs. @ teisa Oma has some plants at her current house, but I guess they are kind of rooted into the outdoors, like they tend to do in Florida. I'm not sure if they will be going with anyone... @_@ I'll have to take a look at them. @ denise Yeah Christmas cactus is definitely another one that falls into this category. That is the plant I associate with my paternal grandmother, who is also a green thumb. Explaining your relationship with people IS confusing - but it feels straightforward enough in the heart lol.

I used to feel so sad about loosing my grandmother. But the ups and downs of health are part of old age. I heartily recommend what others have said, try to treasure the moments you have without fretting about the inevitable. I wish I had done that more with my grandmother, although I did spend a lot of time with her. I wasn't as present as I could have been though, because I just didn't want to deal with loosing her. I left that to my parents. But I was just a teen when she died. Still, I wish I had been stronger to deal with her infirmities. The last day I visited her in the hospital tears were gushing out of my eyes and I couldn't stop it. My grandmother was comforting me! I still miss her tons after 31 years.

...my participation here is more theoretical than specific to this situation, only because the topic of family secrets is so interesting to me. So what's to gain from sharing a family secret "like" this one here? Really, it's about the relationshp between father and daughter. A secret puts up walls due to the shame. So being able to say "I know your secret and I still love and accept you" is really really a powerfully healing thing to the person who holds the secret and potentially increases intimacy between two people. Also, the assumption that the secret holder has put it entirely in their past is often false. People hold on to shame for years and years, and often it nags daily, silently, and bleeds into areas that are not easily detected. Another way of seeing this, rather than simply "He's old, why bring it up now" is to say "He hasn't many years now, he deserves peace". OF course, we don't know in THIS situation what is best for him, so we cannot presume to say that he "should" or "shouldn't" be told. The other thing I know about humans is that we gravitate to status quo. It's familiar, it's comfortable, and the devil we know is more attractive than the devil we don't. To be fair, I choose to keep certain secrets too. I have one that I'll go to my deathbed with - however, I HAVE gone to therapy for it, and a bulk of the shame of it has been dealt with. Certainly makes life easier for me. Hopefully this dad has been able to do the same. However, if someone approached me lovingly with the information and asked me about it, I would likely be scared but relieved as well. It's just not my secret to tell, if that makes sense. Maybe dad feels some sense of loyalty to his mom.

As far as the opt-repeated claims of him being a "strict constructionist" or a "originalist" where you read the actual text of the Constitution and try to glean and educe what was intended by those that originally wrote the document and then not extend any more rights then what their words indicate they meant. A simple way to put the lie to such claims for Justice Scalia is to read the Second Amendment where it says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Any attempt to deduce the original intent behind the statement, must acknowledge that the subordinate clause at the beginning of the sentence, clearly intends to influence and limit the main clause. What exactly is intended by the clause? I'm not sure. It must have been intended to mean something, otherwise why would it even be there. However if you read any opinion by Justice Scalia its clear he felt those words held no more meaning then if they were stray inkblots on the paper.