Saturday Saturday I spent with libertarian friends, but not in a very political context. I drove with Phil Jacobson to the memorial service for Harry Browne in Kernersville. Aside from the somewhat strange fact that it was a religious (Moravian) service for an agnostic (and I guess he doesn't care, one way or another), it was very nice. There was a somewhat formal service in a chapel, then a pause for talking/eating, then a more informal series of eulogies. Most were very nice - his daughter read from a letter he wrote her as a child, and I even managed to stay dry-eyed through it! But I did get a lumpy throat when his wife gave this summation of a very emotion-laden yet calm eulogy: "He wasn't the perfect man, but he was perfect for me." And I came close to really weeping when Sharon Harris described him in a wheelchair, greeting his 'fan' (Sharon's elderly mother-in-law) and kissing her on the head in her wheelchair. One person rather botherd me, though, as he compared losing Browne to losing a father, even though he still had both his parents. But how could he know what losing a parent is really like? I don't think it's at all the same to lose a friend and mentor as to lose a parent. I am sure I was hypersensitive, as my mother died at the same time and same age as Browne and naturally I had been thinking of her much of the day, but really it was irritating to hear that.

So. Now I'll explain the tie picture. During the less-formal series of eulogies and milling-about, there were dozens of neckties laid out on tables through the room, along with pictures from Browne's life. At one point, his daughter's husband (who conducted much of the service) mentioned them and said that each person should take one before leaving. It was funny, because at that point everyone was seated, and every pair of eyes swiveled to the tables to look more closely at the ties when he said that. But I thought it was a wonderful idea, and the tie in the picture is one that traveled home with me. Maybe Bill or I will get to wear it at some point.

After the service, I got to spend some brief but hearty 'quality time' with Michael Badnarik, who's running for congress in Texas these days and is still just as friendly and photogenic as I always find him to be.

I drove to the memorial with Phil, and afterward we drove up north to have dinner with Bev. On the drive, Phil mentioned something I found fascinating (and I do apologise, Phil, for nearly sending you and the car into the bridge abuttment). He told me he read an analysis which explained that the phrase "eye for an eye" was originally meant to be not a sort of retributory thing, but as a starting point for restitution negotiations. Phil's way of explaining it was cute; he played out the dialogue something like this:

Judge: OK, Joe, you've been found responsible for putting Bob's eye out. Therefore he now has the right to one of your eyes.

Joe (to Bob): [gulps] Bob, would you take a couple of cattle instead? I could probably even make it five or six cattle.

Bob: [silence]

Joe: I might have to borrow a few, but really... I could probably even make it seven. How does seven cattle strike you?

You get the point... as a 'fallback' negotiating point, it puts the person who has been wronged in a pretty strong position. That's certainly a much nicer interpretation than thinking people are so stupidly bloodthirsty as to require literal retribution - which can really help no one.

Dinner was - of course! - wonderful, and I got to visit 'my room' at Chez Bev's :-) It turns out that after not visiting in several months, I was back there just a few days later on Tuesday to get a chipper that friends of Bev's (thanks, DJ and Mel!!) were kind enough to give me. So now I have a 'special name' in Rochingham County: "chicken Susan" - which distinguishes me from non-chicken-rearing people named Susan in the area :)  ¶ 11:41 PM