Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Happy day before feastitude...

Happy day before feastitude, y’all!

The weather is miserable with a wicked cold front working its way through the city.

Ah, perfect feasting weather!

Wink.

Last night a bitch watched my new favorite television show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and it was a good one. Keith dove into the Scott McClellan press release sorta-indictment of Scooter B. and his gang of conspiring to out a CIA operative as political payback minions. It was like a hot fudge sundae for the brain (no nuts, extra whipped cream)! And the cherry on top was an appearance by none other than my favorite old school Nixonian felon John Dean!

Fantabulous.

There was nothing for a bitch to do but put in my prized Discovery Channel Watergate documentary tapes…narrated by Daniel Schorr …and tuck into a vodka cran while dreaming that this new scandal is all just another case of history repeating.

Blink.

Shit, a bitch can dream.

Moving forward…

A bitch is beyond fascinated that the 5-4 Supremes will be taking on a case that will tackle the Second Amendment of The Constitution!

I can’t fucking wait to see what those strict constructionists do regard the right to bear arms.

A bitch adores The Constitution (wink) so I took the old girl out to refresh my memory.

“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.”

Blink.

But that seems a bit awkward. Lawd, it almost appears as if some founder smooshed two related rights into one unfortunate sentence! It reads as if the militia, which exists to secure the free state and protect the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I wonder…oh look! Through the magic of Google a bitch has found an earlier version that the current Amendment (ratified in 1791).

This is it as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787…

“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.”

Oh yes, that was much better! A much smoother flow, don’t you think? Makes a bitch wonder if William Lambert didn’t change the meaning of other shit through his adoration of punctuation.

Thank goodness we’ve got the Supreme Court to help us clarify…oh fuck.

With their tendency to ignore the legal advise to stare decisis et non quieta movere by ignoring previous decisions then moving that which was quiet way far away from it’s original location, a bitch predicts some serious drama when this decision comes down.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

ABB,

Keith O has been hitting home runs for years. He was the ONLY newscaster I found that hammered on the voting "inconsistencies" in Ohio in the last election for months after said "election." And he hasn't once let up on Scooter B since we invaded Iraq. Call him the voice in the wilderness.

Ghost

rikyrah said...

Though I have never owned a gun, I believe and support the 2nd Amendment. BUT, I don't see any reason why the Guvmint can't require serious registration, consistent over the 50 states, so that we can TRACK THE GUNS. Also, who needs more than one gun a month, unless you're SELLING THEM. If you're a collector, collect 12 a year; one for each month.

And, nobody has explained to my satisfaction as to why any civilian needs a semi-automatic weapon.

But, I believe in the right -to-bear arms.

Todd said...

Happy Thanksgiving Fu!

--Blue Girl said...

Happiest of Thanksgivings from one bitch to another!

CP said...

Happy Thanksgiving, ABB. Good fortune and health for the start of the holidays.

CP.

The Lazy Iguana said...

Happy Thanksgiving.

I too will be watching for the Supreme Court verdict on this issue. The "well regulated militia" part can not be ignored. So who knows what will go down.

If the SCOTUS makes the "wrong" decision (according to the NRA) then they will blame "the liberals" even if 7 out of 9 judges on the bench were appointed by Republicans (1 by Ford, 2 by Reagan, 2 by Bush Sr, 2 by Clinton, and 2 by Junior). So yea, it will be the "liberals" fault.

And of course, the Republicans will push for another amendment which rewords the 2nd Amendment.

Jason Barr said...

A person could probably write a master's thesis on comma placement in the 2nd Amendment. The history is fascinating.

As it turns out, for once the Wikipedia article on the amendment has a lot of good information, particularly about the history surrounding its incorporation into the Bill of Rights and early interpretation. There's a huge fracas going on about the article lead that has prompted a "neutrality dispute" tag, but I tend to take Wiki article leads with a grain of salt anyway...

Anyway, here it is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'm baring arms right now - wearing a muscle shirt. Oh baby, oh baby.

Happy Thanksgiving, and feast well.

cwilcox said...

Gobble, gobble, Happy Thanksgiving. I hope you and yours have a blessed day.

Anonymous said...

A bitch's blog is one of the things I am so thankful for today.

Blessings to you and yours, and to all y'all.

- Tim

Mike S said...

Keith's been a favorite from the 1st day. Can't go wrong with him.

Yankee T said...

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving. I was touting the glory of the bitchitude over here at my Thanksgiving table yesterday afternoon. Telling my not-so-angry black daughters to get angry and come over here to read.

Thanks for a great place to hang out, ABB!

LiberalDemDave said...

"armed bears"...ain't that a part of the homosexual agenda (/snark).

seriously, keith o. is da' bomb! glad you've discovered him. he'll help with the vodka cran induced morning after headaches, too!

hope you had a great t'day...my husbear and i had lamb shanks and lentils this year instead o' the traditional oversized gobbler.

Anonymous said...

I like what Ms. Gita has to say about this:

http://blog.myspace.com/gitahandley

In a nutshell, why didn't this guy speak up in some other form than a lucrative tell-all book.

Huntington said...

Yeah, this one will rival Bush v. Gore in the revealing-how-full-of-shit-the-"strict-constructionists"-really-are department. Any sentence so vaguely worded (and punctuated) as Amendment II is Exhibit Number One on how there's no way to have one simple interpretation of most of the Constitution. Once you accept that the document is truly vague almost throughout, and that this is a good thing, it's very hard to take anyone who calls himself a strict constructionist at all seriously.

Christopher said...

If I have learned anything in Con Law I this semester, it is that the only one of the Supremes who is actually a strict constructionist is Thomas's crazy ass. Scalia's jurisprudence is entirely outcome-based resting on a foundation of modern social conservative principles. He pulls all that strict constructionist bullshit (as though the Founders were all a bunch of damn Miss Cleos who could see the future for the next 300 years) and condescends to anyone who dare follow Marbury v. Madison by interpreting the law, that is until a strict reading doesn't get him the outcome he wants. For example, the federal government only has the right to regulate INTERstate commerce because that's all the Constitution says. Unless the question involves medical marijuana, for example, that is entirely contained within a state, at which point he is all up in the business of INTRAstate commerce. Given that, when the Second Amendment comes up, you should fully expect him to be interpreting like he's running alongside Marlee Matlin on an episode of The West Wing. Trust. Thomas is nuts, but at least he's consistently nuts. Scalia is just a lying sack of shit disguised as an intellectual. And I will be saying as much on my final exam next week!

FYI, my bf made your cornbread casserole Thursday and it was fantabulous!