Partners for life?

A post best left unwritten.

Just desserts

Wow.  Just read about Lance Armstrong's ad hominem attack on one of the USADA reviewing board's members.  He may have been a world class cyclist, and I've never much held it against him that reaching that level of success probably involved utilizing all that cheats that all the other world class cyclists in the world were using at that time.

But between the way he treated Greg LeMond and this latest stunt: he's also a world class asshole, and if he did cheat, I hope he gets the result he deserves from the whole process.

Snippet, courtesy of my goddaughter

I'm older now, but still runnin' against the wind. - Bob Seger

Conflicting thoughts on SCOTUS decision

I suppose the part that most concerns me about the Supreme Court decision on the PPACA will probably never apply to me.  Still, it offends my sense of . . . well, of America . . . that an independently wealthy person who can pay their own way for health care if they wish is now obliged to purchase health insurance.  It goes beyond mandatory auto insurance coverage laws which - at least in my experience - allow one of sufficient means to demonstrate their ability to meet their financial obligations in other ways than by being compelled to purchase an insurance product that they don't need, either directly or through a punitive tax.  Yet I'm glad that, in upholding the law, the court at least did not conclude that Congress' power to regulate commerce includes a power to compel it.  That would have scary implications.

(I'm setting aside my fears of health care rationing, which I'm not completely convinced are unfounded but which seem somewhat paranoid and Orwellian.)

Entirely on the opposite hand, I'm also a father and grandfather whose daughters and grandchildren have pre-existing medical conditions, the sort of thing for which the insurance industry consistently refused to make reasonable accommodation until they were compelled to do so.  I'm relieved that this will not be problematic for them or the millions of other Americans with medical diagnoses that will never be correctable.

I've also been appalled by the perceived politicization of the Supreme Court.  I feel relieved that this decision did not break along the presumed ideological boundaries, though the only one who diverged therefrom was Chief Justice Roberts.  I agree with those who speculate that he may have voted differently as an associate justice, and can't help feeling that this sense that his official position on this issue was more statesmanlike than judicial.  That isn't necessarily bad; so many on the left had been left feeling disenfranchised by previous Court decisions, often disproportionately to the decisions' rationality.  This is potentially a healing decision with regard to the Court's public perception, which may be a good thing except insofar as it creates an environment in which political ramifications play a role in the Court's decision making process.

I find myself pretty much in agreement with two opinions from today's Washington Post written from antipodal perspectives, who conclude by agreeing nonetheless with this ruling: the paper's editorial board, and then one of their regular conservative op-ed contributors:

"Now the arguments over Obamacare can continue where they are best fought out, in the political arena."

"Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you."

This road we're on, toward the government more closely directing our health care system, may have become inevitable as that system transitioned from being primarily ministry (religious or secular) into being driven by business interests, insurance companies, shareholder profit and loss, and actuarial tables.  Business is cold-hearted by nature, and this product is so essential to every citizen's well-being that this business may indeed need to be regulated more severely than any other business arena.  I'm concerned for some of those ramifications.  I'm saddened by what this may mean for those who still consider everything they do a ministry that they undertake out of love, who are forced in various ways into a set of options which may all violate their consciences in one way or another.  And I'm concerned for doctors who may find their livelihood more threatened than ever before by factors beyond their control, including their patients' willingness to understand and adhere to the courses of action that are best for themselves.

This is a complicated matter, and I have feelings and opinions in support of both sides of it.  The founders' recognition that the success of the grand experiment that is our nation would depend on the willingness of the people to be governable is no less true today than it ever has been.  As we individuals increasingly act in our own best interest, it may become ever more necessary for our government to exert more power in more ways than ever, and we ought not believe for a moment that "totalitarian democracy" is an oxymoron.

Today's word

quiddity - 1. whatever makes something the type that it is : essence  2a. a trifling point : quibble  b. crotchet, eccentricity

When it comes to synonyms of "quiddity," the Q's have it. Consider "quintessence," a synonym of the "essence of a thing" sense of "quiddity" (this oldest sense of "quiddity" dates from the 14th century). "Quibble" is a synonym of the "trifling point" sense; that meaning of "quiddity" arose from the subtler points of 16th-century academic arguments. And "quirk," like "quiddity," can refer to a person's eccentricities. Of course, "quiddity" also derives from a "Q" word, the Latin pronoun "quis," which is one of two Latin words for "who" (the other is "qui"). "Quid," the neuter form of "quis," gave rise to the Medieval Latin "quidditas," which means "essence," a term that was essential to the development of the English "quiddity." - Today's wotd write-up from Merriam-Webster

Brave New World?

When I got on FB this morning, I saw that one of my younger friends had shared a bunch of pictures (11!) in a row with sayings that reflect feelings she could relate to.  It has become a popular trend: take a picture, post an angst-driven observation that makes you feel better, and let your emotionally riven peers share that in lieu of expressing their feelings for themselves.  

On the one hand, my heart goes out to her, while on the other I'm mildly annoyed that I have to choose between not knowing what's going on with her at all and getting to my other friends' firsthand sharing of what they're going through.  My aunt and my cousin are each experiencing the death of one of their closest friends; good friends of ours are still (as far as I know) evacuated because of the fire in Colorado Springs; other good friends are going through an incredibly trying time that they won't post about, but I still treasure the things they do share online as a barometer of how they're doing.

I love knowing what our young friend is going through - and others like her, for that matter - and am lifting her up in prayer along with our other loved ones, but I'd way prefer to see it in her own expression of her thoughts and feelings.  Maybe those are too personal to be shared so broadly.  Still, it's a little like being friends with someone who only speaks through book or movie quotations.  I have a neurotic vision of an e-world so filled with others' feelings expressed so appropriately that we'll never need to use our own words to express our thoughts and feelings for ourselves.


With that: I'm off to see the Wizard!

So excited!

I'm really looking forward to our time at the beach with our daughter and her husband, along with the extended family.  It should be such a nice time!