Monday, December 31, 2012

Welcome 2013

When we last left our intrepid blogger, she was certain that this was a sprain and nothing to be too concerned about. Ah, not so, grasshoppers. The crack radiologist who supposedly read the x-ray on Monday lived up to the description. He missed the big honkin' crack that ran right into the joint AND the bone chip spur thingee next to it. Makes me wonder if the anyone even looked at the damn thing on Monday.

I got the call early Wednesday morning that someone had actually looked at the x-ray and thought it might be  good thing if I came back. Not so fast, little grasshoppers. There was no room at the intake on Wednesday and I had to wait until Thursday before I could see an orthopedist. All this on private insurance, too. 

Thursday, Cousin Laurie came over, announced she was going to iron my hair before I set one foot out the door, then took me to the orthopedist ...who was running a bit behind. When Dr. Tigger finally bounded into the room with the new set of x-rays they'd just taken, I took one look at them and said, "Uh oh," and he said, "Nice fracture you have there."  For G-d's sake, even I saw the big, honkin' crack. How did they miss it on Monday? I'm not really sure I want to know.

So, now, I am the bearer of lovely purple cast. I go back in two weeks for yet another set of x-rays and if everything is knitting nicely, I'm outta the woods; if not, Tigger will put  plate in to shore it up. This is the 4th time I've fractured this wrist, but I have perfect faith in my ability to knit bones better than I knit sweaters. At least, I've been far more successful at the former.

When I'm not rocking back and forth in a corner feeling sorry for myself, I've been following the fiscal cliff debacle with more disgust...almost as much disgust as I feel for the gun nuts who want to arm our schools. Columbine, by the way, had an armed guard and we saw how well that worked.

There was an interesting piece in the New York Times this morning, Let's Give Up on the Constitution, by Louis Michael Seidman, calling for the cessation of devotion to that document "with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."  He goes on to say,

The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong. 

Sounds a lot like orthodox Judaism v. reform….and while my visceral reaction was a resounding, “No way!” I have to tell you, the column stopped me dead in my tracks. Is my thinking too limited by my belief that the fundamentals of the Constitution are correct and should be used as a litmus test for the formation and passage of laws in this country? Can one dispense with parts of the constitution and rely on Congress to adjudicate in the best interest of the population?

As archaic and flawed as the Constitution is, and it is both, the last four years have demonstrated the answer is clearly, no, they cannot be trusted. Congress has amply proven the priorities of individual members are more fundamentally dictated by individual pocketbooks and the needs of the nation be damned. It would seem that the Constitution provides restraint where the passions of a divided Congress run amok. Is it not better to have to pass throught the hoops before an ill-conceived amendment is Prohibition...than to allow Congress full control over the passage of law?  As cumbersome as the process is, I prefer the system of checks and balances weighed against the aged and often obstuse piece of parchment we call the Constitution. I don't trust Congress enough to take away that yardstick.

On the other hand...and isn't there always another hand....the inflexibility of that piece of parchment gives rise to the ongoing brain freeze with the second amendment. The inability of Congress to entertain rational thought on the topic of assault weapons makes one long for a president decisive enought to just construct a bill and ram it could and most certainly would work both ways.

So for my New Year's resolution, I am resolving not only to lose a zillion pounds and run a marathon (not) I am promising you, gentle readers, that I am going deepen my understanding of Constitutionality. Hell's bells! If I 'm going to constantly harp about the thing, the least I can do is to get more ducks for my row!

Wishing you all a happy, healthy, prosperous, and wonderfully adventurous New Year!

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week
Don't believe everything Congress tells you...
2013 will continue to grow the economy. I have spoken.



  1. What happens if the "other hand" is broken? Wishing you the best in 2013 and speedy healing!
    My daughter's boyfriend is suggesting putting a teacher in every gun store as an alternative.
    (Although this will be posted as coming from "anonymous" because that's the only way I can figure out how to post on this site.)

  2. If you want to understand Congress, read the book "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Schweizer. Election to congress is a free pass to rape the country. It is obscene and knows no political bounds.

    As for your wrist, I hope it heals okay. A fracture through the joint space can be very nasty. Linda Brodsky

  3. WP, I won't even get started on what I think of America's health care delivery system other than I hope the "crack radiologist" who was *supposed* to have read the original X-rays correctly has been severely reprimanded (or even urged to find another career altogether).

    As for the hallowed, misinterpreted 2nd Amendment, too bad the Framers didn't include the right to own motorized vehicles so we could do away with those pesky requirements such as having a driver's licence to operate one, as well owners having the added expense of license tags and (at least) liability insurance. Oh, and eliminate the need for traffic laws, traffic lights, speed limits AND road signs like "One Way - Do Not Enter". Then we could just drive our 3,000 lb murder machines wherever we want, as fast as we want, without fear of legal reprimand...on sidewalks, over the neighbor's obnoxious preteen, over the neighbor him/herself if he/she is the "wrong" color, "wrong" gender orientation, or doesn't agree with our politics. That's freedom, too, right?

  4. I should probably add that we accept these limitations on vehicle ownersip and operation, so why not on gun ownership and where to use them??

  5. JG, good question. Cars have a purpose other than killing people. An assault rifle with a 30+ round magazine does not.

    WP, I'm concerned that we still attempt to "interpret" a document who's drafters could never have conceived of today's world. If the Bill of Rights was written in 1955, maybe there would have been a right to drive and chaos would reign on the road (more than it currently does). Often it seems the various methods of interpretation are used to justify a political/ideological/moral position. We can guess the decision and who is on each side for most SCOTUS cases - is that because we know exactly how they will conduct their "interpretation"? No, it's because we know their views on many of these big issues and can guess where they'll end up after they "interpret." If it all came down to just interpreting, then why do SCOTUS nominations always become a talking point for presidential candidates? We try to convince ourselves that these (admittedly) very smart people know what a bunch of guys who've been dead for 200 years intended with regard to stem cell research and light-weight fully automatic weapons. Really, with the set up of the courts we don't have much other choice.
    Regardless of the merits of the courts, you are right: Congress can't be trusted. Unfortunately, many times the courts aren't much better. Maybe it's time for, as you would say, We the People to make some changes. We aren't going to change the courts - they have lifetime appointments and are nearly untouchable. But we can change the Congress. Let's try to find ways to make them accountable or at least passable as a legislative body. How do we do that? I don't know.
    1. I would maybe start with term limits. Give these blowhards an expiration date. If they don't have a "next election" to look at, maybe they'll look at what's best for the COUNTRY.
    2. Next we need to take the funny money out of the system. Let's keep it to a sane amount (the election cycle should not cost enough to bail out Detroit again). We'll get rid of some of the lobbyists and "I owe you one" fundraisers and donations. We the People should have a say in who out candidates are and not have to pick from the white men chosen by They the Billionaires and Those the Hedgefunds.
    3. Next, let's cut down on the election cycle. It is IDIOTIC to campaign year-round every year. Congressional elections should last maybe 3-4 months. The rest of the time, maybe our elected officials could concentrate on doing the job they've been elected to do. Would it be a hectic 120 days? Yep. Are the last 120 days pretty hectic now? Yep. So, it's worth a try.
    What else?
    4. More limitations on immediately becoming a lobbyist as soon as you are out of office. Sorry, I want at least the perception that things are on the up and up.
    5. Requirements for fact-checking of political ads BEFORE they air. You should not be able to LIE to We the People in order to get elected. Don't waste our time with that crap. Would this get rid of Faux News? Would that be a bad thing? Really people, we need HONEST debate not inflammatory crap clouds of rhetoric.
    Okay, I think I'm off-topic enough for one night. But it's a new year and it's fun to think about an idyllic future where everything works the way it's intended (my "interpretation" is the Congress is supposed to actually WORK - crazy I know).
    Heal fast, think deep, write more!