in-laws & the EPA

I was talking to Lauren yesterday and mentioned that I'm meeting Karen for coffee tomorrow afternoon.

Lauren said, "Who?"

"Karen," I said. "You know, Chris's mom."

There was silence on the other end of the phone.

Eventually, "You know that's really weird, right?"

I got a little defensive, demanded to know what she meant. She said, "Well, you know, most people don't meet their ex-boyfriend's mother for coffee after they break up."

I explained that I have mail to pass on to Chris, that his parents are still, after all, my landlords, that I want to stay on good terms with them, and so on and so forth. Probably still somewhat defensively.

Finally Lauren said, "I didn't necessarily mean it was bad weird. And I forgot about the apartment thing. It's just weird that you two like each other enough to still want to get together sometimes. I guess it's kind of cool. I mean, I don't want to see Justin's mother, and he's my husband!"

It's funny, these connections that linger. I lucked out immensely, for all intents and purposes getting Karen and Jerry as in-laws for five years, but that's something I didn't necessarily recognize or appreciate all that time being essentially their daughter-in-law. And clearly the relationship has changed, has become something odd and tenuous, short notes over email every few months, rent checks written and cashed, Christmas and birthday cards exchanged, a coffee now and again. But I'm glad to still have this connection, even as fragile as it is, and will probably continue with the birthday and Christmas cards, at least for awhile longer.

On another note, and very much a non sequitur, I was disappointed earlier this week, if not particularly surprised, to learn of the clash between the state of California and the EPA concerning automobile emissions. California wants to enforce stronger restrictions on pollution, the EPA (you know, the Environmental Protection Agency) is refusing to let them, and now California is suing the EPA. Here's a good take on the situation.