It means what it says

I have learned more about Justice Scalia since his demise.

I also have learned I like some of what he said about the Constitution. He said the Constitution should be considered and interpreted in the light of the times in which is was written. In other words, look at what was meant in the late 1700s to understand the Constitution.

I like that. The more I think on it, the more I like it. Across the board.

Now some people are going to immediately rip into me about what the original Constitution has to say on many things, including slavery, women's rights and etc.

In other words, look at what was meant in the late 1700s to understand the Constitution. Read the Constitution.

I'll come back to that in a moment.

Scalia, among other things, said the federal government has no business telling a woman she can have an abortion. He also said the fed boyos have no business telling a woman she cannot have an abortion. His reasoning was abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, ergo is a matter left to the states.

For those saying I'm now an idiot (and you may be right), I point out abortion is mentioned in the Bible. It was also available at the time the Constitution was written.

Further, under the Constitution, I'd argue that states have no right to have a say on abortion. See the 14th Amendment for particulars. This Amendment makes the Constitution apply to state governments.

Since I'm on the topic of Amendments, there's yer segue. Look at Article 5. Here's pretty good explanation of Article 5.

Real clear. Real simple. If the Constitution does not address the matter, it's left to the people. If the Constitution does address the matter, look at what was meant WHEN THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

If there's an issue, Amend the Constitution. It's been done in my lifetime. Sometimes, Amending the Great Document is a mistake. The 18th Amendment was a mistake. The 21st Amendment undid the mistake.

Slavery was repealed VIA AMENDMENT!

The right to vote was AN AMENDMENT!

The only clause I can think of right now which should be interpreted in light of modern mores is the Cruel and Unusual punishment clause.

I was taught in school the Constitution is a "living document." It's not. If the Founding Fathers mean the Constitution to cover everything, Article 5 would not be a part of the document. The ability to Amend the Constitution is the Founding Father's guarantee that it CAN be adapted to things they could not foresee.

Interpret the words based on the time they were written. If you have issues, attempt an Amendment.

And let the flaming commence.

About that incident yesterday

A LOT of people wondered why I did not chase after the police and deputies as they sped to the scene yesterday just south of Cordele. A lot of people wondered why I have not reported more than the few lines on the newspaper's Facebook page.

I splain.

1) It was Thursday. The paper comes out Tuesday night.

In other words, I could:

a) rush to the scene and gather information from hectic officers who did not have time to talk to me. That is, if I could get that close, which I couldn't. While all the information I gathered would come from reliable sources, those sources would not have ALL the information nor all the CORRECT information right then. Not accusing anyone of lying, nope. Am saying in a rush no one has all the facts.

b) wait until things calmed down. Then I could talk to the sheriff, the PD and get what actually happened, who it happened to and what is being done about. I'd get it correct and have the full and CORRECT story in next week's newspaper.

2) I stayed out of the way. Really. They did not need me up there possibly getting in the way. I've covered a load of crime stories in my life. Every. Single. Time. the correct story came after everything calmed down and people had time to gather their thoughts.

3) I'm not interested in spreading rumors. I understand a certain broadcast medium in a nearby town is all about jacking the story and reporting whatever they think is the truth and factual. In 25 years, I've seen that outfit get 1 and precisely one story 100 percent factually correct. Every other story where I had all the details and they did too, they got facts wrong. Yeah, it is my opinion they lie.

You'll note that other infotainment outlet in a nearby town has put out a different story every time their immaculately crafted fiction is updated. I do make mistakes. Mine are honest and I correct them. Those folks cannot be bothered to get it right or correct what they do.

4) You wanna see pictures of dead people at an accident scene and people bleeding from gunshot wounds, go look somewhere else. I'm not going to feed the vulture in you. I do not like covering bad news anyway. I much prefer stories about the wrestling team headed to state today and tomorrow (GO REBELS!), students of the month at TCES, the west side water tank and pump and letting people who stand up in front of the City Council have their say in the paper.

The only time that other place will come to town is if we pay 'em thousands of dollars (ask why they have NEVER made a net contribution to the Fire Ant Festival) or someone is bleeding. I'm here for the good and the bad. Ask 'em why they won't cover the good stuff here unless they can get someone to pay for it.

5) I was already working on stuff.

6) People look to me to get the story right, to tell what happened and tell you the truth. That means waiting until the dust settles so everyone can see clearly.

7) I am not going to sling rumors on FB. In fact, when I see people slinging rumors there, I delete them from my friends list.

You may not like or understand this, but I am committed to getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you want lies, I do believe that outfit to the west and plenty of people on FB can accommodate you.

Grammar? What about her?

/Rant on

Lotsa people like to say you have to "know the rules of grammar in order to break them."

Really? Since when? According to what universal law of the cosmos? Who made you an arbiter of all things grammatically correct?

I know people who not only break the laws of grammar, but grind them underfoot, pour jet fuel on the ashes and light a bonfire. These people cannot read nor write.

Yet, they communicate perfectly well. Who are you to say they are not?

"Well, they are not writing."

And? What in the nine hells of Dante and the seven f'dangin' rings of power does writing have to do with it? These people communicate perfectly well. They can bloody well dictate to someone else who CAN write it down.

What is the difference? Barbara Cartland was one of the world's most prolific romance novel authors. She dictated her work and someone else typed it. She was one of the most commercially successful writers of the past century.

So. How do your earnings stack up against hers? How about the volume of her work compared to yours?

"Well, she knew the rules of grammar."

Circular logic will leave you eating your tail. So I reiterate, I know people who communicate perfectly well and leave proper grammar in shambles. 

"Proper grammar makes it easier to read."

A hit, a very palpable hit! Maybe the writer doesn't give a levitating coitus about you reading it. Maybe, just maybe, they wrote it for someone else to read. Didja think of that? You may continue to perch on your elevated milking stool, but forsooth, it hath no legs and thou be now recumbent.

I freely admit to being a grammar nazi, but I only SEIG HEIL! at people who are obnoxious about it or I do it to gently rib friends. I expect the same of them.

I have friends who say that I break the rules of grammar gleefully and with intentions aforethought. Yes we does my precious, yes we does. I do it, as they point out, to make a point, to make the expressed thoughts more personal, more vibrant and more thought-provoking. (Actual typos in my work make me wanna turn green, shred my shirt, blow out my shoes and miraculously keep my pants on, despite them being tighter than hooker's spandex on Saturday night.)

So lemme add this in defense of my unknowingly grammar-defying buds out yonder. Nextest time you decide to get all High 'N Strunk & White on 'em, please tell me how many books you have written (I'm at 12 now and 9 in print, not counting the 60+ history volumes I have contributed to), how many words you have written AND been PAID to write (for me, just guessing in excess of 2 million at this point) and how much money you make annually from writing (100 percent of my income) and how long you have been paid to be an editor (30 years and counting heah). Yeah. Let's get into a male farm fowl fight.

Yassee, when you go after people who look at grammar as a mild suggestion instead of a rule, yer trying to have a battle of wits with someone who is woefully unarmed compared to your arsenal. I'm just reminding you, "Let's have a fair fight, no hitting below the belt and keep it clean." Otherwise, I'mma have to step in an' beat you down by using your own rules.

/rant off