boo. hiss. and bad game.

this starts off as an overtly political post, which i try not to do too often but today these folks just makin me mad!

bush has announced his nominee for the supreme court, conservative judge john g roberts. here’s a sentence from the ny times that makes me feel like a duped idealist:

"His résumé suggests that Judge Roberts will not commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise."

the american dream has been relagated from a goal to paradise! guess its in heaven too. perhaps i am willfully misunderstanding the quote to conclude that roberts will stick with modern interpretations of the law, no matter how far right they are, rather than intention of the white male framers (who, in a twist no cherokee or ghanain at the time would believe, would be considered radical leftists in today’s political environment). i guess the constitution just isn’t even where its at anymore?

in other news, the house is considering extending the right of african americans to vote for 25 more years after 2007. sometimes i get so tired of white answers to black questions. at what point in the future will you need to revoke the right of african americans to vote – you already got us between Disenfranchisement and the Democrats. i can’t wait for the day we stop settling, no matter how many lives i gotta get thru to see it.

on a happier note, i got to stare at someone beautiful through dinner and drinks last night. i love dates. everyone, ask someone on a date and make it fabulous!

but wait did i tell you about the crazy man, we’ll call him L-Crazee, from the other night? he seemed harmless enough, beautiful like evans or shane or denzel as malcolm – or malcolm. met him in front of my bodega and he delayed me for an hour during which he said all of the following:

– do you believe in love at first sight?
– i have been around the block and am looking to settle down
– don’t go
– can i call you when i get home?
– can we have breakfast in the morning?
– can i buy you ice cream and then massage your feet?
– you are beautiful. i can just see our kids. (!!!!)
– i love toys, electronics. love them. obsessed. can’t get enough. i love them all.
– i’m trying to make money, ya heard?
– you can come watch cable at my house.
– i can tell this is going to be nice if you don’t misbehave.
– misbehaving would be if i went 2-3 days and didn’t hear from you.
– one more hug?
– you really leaving?
– fine then.

in the midst of which i generally said:

– why you think you want to talk to me?
– you’re beautiful too.
– i need to go home now.
– shit, you might be crazy. i can’t believe i just gave you my number (inside-mind voice)
– i’m leaving now 🙂

i did somehow give him a hug and a kiss – he shocked me with that film star level beauty, looked like he stepped off some runway to blast me with his white tooth smile and bald black head. however!!! enough beautiful crazy for me. he talked his way right out of the "pretty likely" VIP room and into the "never gonna get it" asylum in my mind, which is already hella crowded.

i mostly brought him up as a lesson to the would be mack-lovahs out there. there are so many things to NOT say when first meeting someone, and he managed to say roughly all of them.

have a great day!

Author: Adrienne

VIRGO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): Your uprising against the forces of darkness has got to do more than say "no." A fierce, primal yes should be at the heart of your crusade. (rob brezny, long ago)

One thought on “boo. hiss. and bad game.”

  1. Hi adrienne! My year in law school tells me you are misinterpreting the quote from the Times. The justice on the court who is most trying to “recapture a distant constitutional paradise” is Scalia. The paradise is like the good ‘ol days when the constitution meant what the framers meant when they wrote it – “originalism,” or “forgetting the civil war, progressive era, civil rights and women’s movements ever happened.” So Scalia will write stuff like “How can we even be discussing with a straight face a constitutional right to *enage in sodomy,* or *choose abortion* or *access a law library in prisons* or *vote* or any of these new-fangled 20th C activities?! Those so-called rights were the furthest thing from the framer’s minds and we have to stick to their original intent when we interpret the constitution, not invent new rights.” So the Times is actually saying that Roberts might be a little more hip to “new rights” than Scalia or Thomas, a little more progre, as the kids say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.