On a grey and cool morning, with the neighborhood ground hog wiggle-waddling unafraid and undisturbed across the macadam street, I wonder who confected the phrase "dead to rights."
It's not the meaning that eludes me -- all sorts of Internet parsings and definitions more or less agree ... but what inspired the chosen words initially? I suppose it's unanswerable, but it was wiggle-waddling around in my mind.
And with it, the mind also returned to Montana, a state that, as far as I can figure out, is the only one to seriously challenge the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision that allows corporations to support politicians with unlimited ("free speech") donations. If Montana persists, as it has despite being slapped down, why is it (or is it?) the only state to do so? It's a losing battle that only Montana has taken up. (Is that true?)
A fight worth losing ... now there's an interesting principle. Where else is this sort of backbone to be found? Why has Montana collectively taken up this challenge where, in the sissified East where I live, the only liberal or democracy-prone whimpering is done over white wine ...
Who would rather lose for the right reasons than win for the wrong ones? Who, these days, plays to win but takes the responsibility for losing? Everyone seems to want to win, but if that doesn't work out, they back-pedal swiftly in an effort to look good nonetheless.
It's all just wiggle-waddling around in my mind. I hate the idea of doing a newspaper column about Montana -- it requires an explanation that Twitter-ites might find less than engaging -- but I love Montana enough so that I may end up doing it.
And ... as one last component of the wiggle-waddles: I kind of like the phrase "Islamic State Christians." What's Qur'an for one is Bible for the other.