Maybe the reason we have such problems with “mass incarceration” is because too many things have been criminalized?

It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the deaths of those the police seek to arrest: it’s every law. “Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right,” wrote Carter.

It isn’t just libertarians who warn about overcriminalization. The conservative Heritage Foundation published a report last year by former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey and Paul Larkin Jr. warning that “the sheer number of federal laws that impose criminal penalties has grown to an unmanageable point.”

Are we really a free country if a single mother can be thrown in jail for not mowing her grass? How about catching a fish to feed your family? What about having expired car tags?

If we want to reduce violent confrontations between citizens and police, we should reduce the involuntary interactions that cause them. Any offense that does not directly harm the life, physical health, or property of others should not be regarded as such. The civil code should instead be used to address those grievances.

The rule for this should be simple: If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.  This should be the foundation of criminal law. And, yeah, getting your feelings hurt by someone does not make you a victim of anything other than your personal issues.

Mark Ruffalo plays a scientist in the Avenger movies; this, to the left, makes him an authority on science. He is now demanding that California ban all fossil fuels.

Actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo is calling on California Gov. Jerry Brown to end the state’s usage of fossil fuels for oil extraction and move to 100 percent renewable energy.

“This is really mankind’s greatest threat, and it should take some serious problem solving on all of our parts,” Ruffalo told the paper. “And we don’t really have to give up anything to do it.”

Nothing except warm homes, affordable food, reliable transportation, middle class jobs, and… oh, yeah, Freedom.

Nothing important.

Speaking of Hollywood Moonbats, Quentin Tarantino… who because he makes incredibly violent movies featuring criminals is regarded as an authority on matters of law and order… says that the police are “murderers.”

The “Pulp Fiction’’ director took part in an anti-cop rally less than a week after an officer was killed on the job.

“When I see murders, I do not stand by . . . I have to call the murderers the murderers,” the director — notorious for his violent movies — told a crowd of protesters in Washington Square Park on Saturday, adding that cops are too often “murderers.”

Nevertheless, when his new film opens, he will protected by these same “murderers,” and not representatives of the#BlackLivesMatter movement.

Was reading this morning about the biker gang war that led to 192 arrests and 9 deaths in Waco this weekend. (Meanwhile, 41 people were shot in Chicago this weekend. 7 are dead. The MFM didn’t make this as big as Waco Biker murders.)

This line kind of stuck out for me.

“We feel like [the Twin Peaks restaurant where the altercation started] could’ve done more. We feel like that they did not take our advice and try to keep the bike groups from being here,” said Swanton on Sunday after the shooting. “They absolutely have a right to refuse service to people that may be a harm to their patrons and employees.”

But what if the bikers were gay and demanded cake?

The left wing hate groups have seen through the devious scheme launched by Memories Pizza in order to con generous conservatives out of over $600,000 in donations so far.

Their brilliantly devious plot began over ten years ago, when the owners of Memories Pizza opened a small pizza shop in Walkerton, IN and began selling pizza. Behind the scenes, the owners used their political connections, dark magic, and ties to the Illuminati to create a national gay marriage movement. Then, they got the Indiana Legislature to pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Then, they got the national media and left wing hate groups to lie about the law’s content and foment a massive social backlash. Then, they waited for some dingbat reporter from a UHF station to walk into their store, take a quote from them out of context, and thus get the gay left hate groups to issue threats of violence against them. And then, at the culmination of their brilliant ten year confidence scheme… a conservative radio host starts a GoFundMe account so they can reap the proceeds.

Not since Chancellor Palpatine in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace has there been such a devious, well thought out, perfectly executed conspiracy.

This what hate-filled left-wing nutjobs actually believe.

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck and Alex Jones just called and said they found the theory “a little far-fetched.”

Bitter ex-girlfriend files phony “Sexual Harassment” complaint, ruins dude’s life. Sometimes, you wonder why anyone chooses to be straight.

Universities that caved to the Fascism of the Radical Feminist Left and the Obama Department of Justice and adopted the standard for rape conviction demanded by those parties — i.e. A man is guilty of rape if a woman accuses him of rape — are now being sued by men who’ve been wrongfully convicted and deprived of civil rights under that absurd standard.

As of this month, there have been 50 known lawsuits filed by men found guilty of rape looking for justice to clear their names and legal record, according to A Voice For Male Students’ website.

“Predictably, a wave of lawsuits soon erupted as young men wrongly accused of sex crimes found themselves hustled through a vague and misshapen adjudication process with slipshod checks and balances and Kafkaesque standards of evidence,” the men’s advocacy page reads.

Brown University settled one suit for a million dollars. Caving into radical feminism comes with w price tag, but at least innocent men are getting some compensation.

It ain’t just straight dudes either.

The accuser, who has not filed criminal charges, has called for administrators to issue a sharper punishment, ideally expulsion. He said he is considering filing a Title IX complaint against the school because, he said, administrators downplayed some of his concerns, were not sufficiently transparent about the process, and discriminated against him because he is a man and gay.

“There are parts of me that wish I didn’t go through this process because I feel like I’ve gone through a lot of re-victimization and re-traumatization,” the accuser said in an interview. “But I also feel like it’s something that needs to be talked about.’’

Meanwhile, the accused student has denied the allegations, which he called “ridiculous,” saying he and his ex-boyfriend had a typical romantic relationship.

I think most of us are familiar with how bitter and vengeful XBF’s can be after a bad breakup.

California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed into law a bill requiring explicit state-approved consent before college students can have sex with each other.

Under this standard, a sex act can only be presumed as consensual if both participants have explicitly consented. Even if no overt objections are raised at the time, if no explicit consent is obtained a sexual encounter may be defined as rape.

Henceforth, male students within California’s system of higher ed are advised to make their partners sign consent forms before each and every sexual activity; thus to please the misandrist puritans of the modern left.

So much for the fine art of seduction. That a woman should not immediately agree to a man’s sexual overtures has been quite customary throughout history; seduction has been a key ingredient in the sexual cocktail.  No more, though. If a woman doesn’t immediately consent, I suppose the man is supposed to just walk away and never breach the subject again. Leave it to the left to turn sex into a bureaucratically-managed activity subject to strict oversight by the state… like everything else.

A lawsuit fired by a former gym teacher and coach at a posh New York private school alleges that the Athletic Director, a lesbian, discriminated against him for maintaining a traditional family life.

The discrimination suit claims that Krieger attempted to force Kenney to coach three sports — soccer, basketball and golf — even though his contract only mandated that he coach two teams.

When Coach Kenney protested about the burden of working extra nights and weekends because he wanted to spend more time with him wife and children, Krieger balked.

“We all make choices,” she said, according to the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Kenney’s complaint alleges, “a single, female teacher faced no scrutiny when she refused to coach a third season.”

The suit claims that Krieger ran off three other married coaches who have young kids and notes that Kenney’s replacement is a gay female.

I used to be friends with an uber-feminist who, after college, went to work for a non-profit organization run by a lesbian and her partner. She told me that the constant sexual politics in the office made the job intolerable. The organization’s mission was always secondary or tertiary to keeping up with the constantly shifting alliances and vendettas that the women brought to the office.

It also strikes me as a Sign o’ the Times that one teacher gets fired for having a traditional family, another gets defended for molesting one of his students.

This story has been around for years, but I’m just catching up. Perhaps some of you are, too. It’s a horrifying example of modern-day tyranny. (And, not to plug Chris Christie who is not perfect, but Christie is helpful in it.)

Brian Aitken is a law-abiding citizen who legally bought guns in Colorado, legally transported them to New Jersey when he moved there to be near his young son, never did anything wrong or harmful with them; and was nonetheless arrested on highly questionable grounds, charged with felony possession (an initial charge was non-existent under New Jersey law), convicted under highly questionable jury instructions, and imprisoned under a seven-year sentence.

After he served four months in prison, Gov. Christie commuted his sentence, achieving his release. And the charges have been partially overturned.

But the damage doesn’t stop there. As if to compound the tyranny, a family judge denied Aitken practical access to his son – partly on the convictions, and partly on the supposed grounds that a father who owns firearms (or who might; Aitken actually doesn’t own anymore) is an automatic danger to his family. Never mind that gun ownership is in the Constitution.

This man’s constitutional rights have been severely violated. And when you hear Aitken tell his story, you understand that such things could happen to any responsible parents or gun owners – like, say, gay parents, or gay gun owners.

If you’re inclined, a donation can still help Mr. Aitken to publish his book and continue his legal battle to clear his name. The remaining charge/conviction on him is that he transported ammunition; as Aitken points out, a law that lets you keep a type of ammunition in your home, but not move it when you move your home, is arguably nuts.

So, as I’ve said before, I’m mostly agnostic on gay marriage (I believe the entire institution should be left to personal/familial/community/religious devices and the government should remove itself entirely from the argument lock-stock-and-barrel). That said, you can’t be gay—well, or even straight it seems—in the United States today, according to the media, and not be completely and obsessively consumed by the issue (and, natch, your opinion can only be “FOR!”).

And since SCOTUS is hearing it this week, I suppose I might as well poke a stick into the monkey cage:

If we’re supposed to oppose DOMA on states’ rights grounds, should we then oppose the effort to overturn Prop 8?

Discuss.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HHQ

UPDATE
Excellent point made (and I don’t just say this because I have several captions vying for his “Best of” category) by VtheK from the comments:

This country would be so much better off if people cared as much about fiscal responsibility and economic growth as they do about giving same sex couples a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to legitimize their coupling.

Speaking of which, I think the time has come to push for polygamy. If gender doesn’t [matter], what’s so damned magical about the number 2?

(As for the first part, I have made this exact point many times myself, and I have much more to say about Viking’s second point, which perhaps I will anon…)

Perhaps like me, you’re enjoying this great new TV show I just found on C-SPAN2 called Mr. Paul Goes to Washington where my favorite Senator is currently filibustering President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan. As I write this, he’s currently about to ring in his sixth hour. The goal of Senator Paul’s soliloquy is, as he has stated several times since I’ve been watching, simply to elicit one thing: A straight-forward answer to the question, (to paraphrase) ‘Does the president believe he has the legal authority to execute through drone strike non-combatant citizens on American soil?’

Brings up a very interesting point: For eight solid years, we heard screeching and gnashing of teeth from the Left about how George W. Bush wants to kill us all and eat our babies and of course shred the Constitution through wars based on lies and the horrible PATRIOT Act. But in the end, who is it who’s actually standing up for these ideals? Well, so far I’ve seen Senator Paul in exchanges with Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Pat Toomey. Odd, don’t you think, that it’d be these ‘Tea Party right-winger knuckle-draggers’ who are actually doing the work that the Bush-haters allegedly wanted done while the leaders of their nominative party are lining up with their president in his expansion of Bush’s ‘unitary executive’ policies?

Clearly it’d be expecting waaay too much for the addlepated adherents to the Bush-is-Satan school of political thought to recognize the irony of the situation, let alone find that realization a great opportunity for self-reflection. Sad, that.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

NB: I had originally written the paraphrase of Sen Paul’s question as “power” to execute. Clearly that’s within the president’s power, but I’ve clarified (I hope) by changing my original post to read “legal authority”, which I think is likely more to his point.

A federal judge for the Southern District of California is allowing a woman to proceed with her case against Avis Rent-A-Care because the company “did not give her the gay and lesbian group member price discount.”   In his ruling he cites “California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act” which “seeks to prevent any discrimination among people on the basis of listed characteristics.”  (Via Instapundit.)

The plaintiff, he wrote, “has stated a plausible claim for relief, i.e., that AVIS violated the prohibitions of the Act regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”  If she succeeds in her suit, private companies, like Avis, will no longer be able to offer discounts to members of gay and lesbian organizations.

If Avis wishes to offer discounts to members of gay and lesbian organizations as a means to promote their service, the company should be free to do so. And if this woman believes Avis is discriminating against her, she remains free to take her business elsewhere.  Avis is not the only rental car company.

Yesterday, commenting on Politico’s coverage on “this Politico report on CNN’s ratings woes“, Ed Driscoll took issue with the notion of the network as a non-partisan purveyor of news:

And if you believe that CNN really is “committed to nonpartisan news-gathering” free of partisanship (cough —shilling for Saddam, getting cozy with Kim Jong Il — cough — Wright-Free Zone — cough — Anderson Cooper’s painful “teabagging” references, baking cakes for Obama and on and on and on) then you might be working for a “news” organization that is also a partisan shop pretending to be objective, and wondering why it’s losing audience as well.

Whatever Fox and MSNBC’s other issues, at least consumers know what sort of product they’re getting when tune into those networks. Trying to pretend to be objective is a long-outdated model that’s reached the end of the production line.

(H/t Instapundit.)

Today, while doing cardio at the gym, caught CNN’s coverage of the Obamacare decision.  Wolf Blitzer was interviewing two beaming left-of-center pundits, the smarmy  journolister Jeffrey Toobin and Dahlia Lithwick.

An objective news source would have included a conservative on this panel.

The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the mandate to purchase health insurance as a tax.

“As an exercise of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause,” writes the Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso, “the individual mandate does not hold water. But under Congress’s taxing power, it is a legitimate provision.”

My quick analysis. Pyrrhic victory for Obama. He’ll have a few good days. Vote holding Eric Holder in contempt won’t get much media coverage.  But, decision could prove to be political headache for the president.  The court may have found the law constitutional, but it remains unpopular.  Mitt Romney will be able to use this against him:  the only way to repeal this law is to replace Obama.

So, if Obama celebrates the decision, he’ll be acknowledging that he broke this campaign promise:

UPDATE: Walter Olson offers a roundup of his tweets here.  Glenn has a great roundup here; seems others bloggers/blogresses have offered titles similar to my own.

Ann Althouse is more sanguine than are most conservatives, having “said repeatedly that Obama would be worse off if Obamacare were upheld, but what I’m really seeing is how bad it is for him with the mandate declared a tax.”

UP-UPDATE:  From Ira Stoll, linked by Glenn above:

By calling the mandate a tax, the court made an official ruling that President Obama had violated his 2008 campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year. And the ruling also keeps ObamaCare alive as a political issue. A ruling that struck down the law might have energized Obama supporters. This ruling may make the law’s opponents even more determined to elect a Republican president and Congress so that they can repeal the law or, failing that, defund it.

UP–UP-UPDATE: “The Supreme Court,” quips Jim Geraghty, “just gave Mitt Romney a very, very useful line: ‘As President, I will repeal President Obama’s health care tax.’”

FROM THE COMMENTS:  boatseller forecasts that “in about 4 weeks, liberal bloggers are going to start chattering about a conspiracy between Justice Roberts and the Romney campaign to uphold the law in order to hurt the President.”  Heh.

A number of conservative bloggers have addressed the merits of the “administration’s assertion of executive privilege with respect to Fast and Furious documents”.  In this post, my friend John Hinderaker called that assertion “frivolous”:

Holder’s letter is a remarkable document. Viewed from a strictly technical standpoint, it is a terrible piece of legal work.

If you have time, read the whole thing.  In a followup post, he “pointed out that lawyers only assert lousy claims of privilege when they have something to hide“:

So the presumption that there is damaging information in the documents the administration refuses to produce is very strong. In his defense, Eric Holder merely asks that we trust him. But why should we? The administration’s track record with respect to Fast and Furious–and Eric Holder’s, in particular–is one of serial attempts to deceive. Let’s itemize three instances.

Once again, read the whole thing.

I couldn’t agree more with this post from Matthew Yglesias:

Something that I think most people don’t realize is that for the vast majority of American history, the judicial branch has been a very conservative elite-dominated institution. Most people’s view of the matter is distorted by the historical aberration that occurred roughly between the Brown andRoe decisions, with a lot of good criminal justice decisions in between. Even there, one has to recall that with its landmark civil rights decisions, the Supreme Court was in large part just reversing what the late 19th century Supreme Court did by throwing out the civil rights legislation of the Grant administration.

Emphasis added.  Well said.  Read the whole thing.

There is much, much more to this, particularly as it pertains to gays.  I have always believed that social change comes from our communities, through private institutions and enterprises.  It is not the government’s role to foster social change nor to prevent it from happening organically.

Had I not chanced upon this piece a few minutes before bed, I might have more to say on it, but for now, I think it’s important to alert our readers to the post, especially because a liberal blogger is putting forward a view in sync with conservative legal scholars.

FROM THE COMMENTS:   Jim Hlavac offers:

Virtually all gains made by gay folks in the past 40 years towards our acceptance as decent people has been made without legislative or judicial help; and sometimes even despite laws and rulings against us. No court ruling is going to change anyone’s mind about us. Long before laws against us were removed we had already started the process of removing the negativism, person by person, mostly starting with our families and hetero friends. Even Bowers v. Hardwick did not dent the trend, nor did Lawrence push it. And the trend is still moving forward.

Exactly.  Read the whole thing!

Last night, via this blog’s Facebook page, a reader alerted me to an article sure to cheer (momentarily) the hearts of all freedom-loving Americans:  a federal judge has ruled that a gay softball league can set its own standards for participation.

“It is not,” U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour wrote in his ruling, “the role of the courts to scrutinize the content of an organization’s chosen expression.”  Nor should it be.

Three bisexual men filed a lawsuit in Washington state against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association (NAGAA) after they had been kicked off the team for not being gay enough.  Now, when I initially blogged about this suit last April, I called NAGAA’s rule limiting the number of heterosexual players “stupid” and found it “disgusting that a gay organization would not just countenance, but also conduct a public interrogation into individuals’ private lives.”  (It did so to find out if they were gay enough.)

That said, it’s a private organization and private organizations should be allowed to set their own rules.  Allowing it to do so, the judge

. .  refused to enjoin enforcement of the two-player rule. “Plaintiffs have failed to argue that there is a compelling state interest in allowing heterosexuals to play gay softball,” Coughenour wrote.

“NAGAAA might very well believe that given the history of gay exclusion for sports, the only way to promote competition for all persons, and ensure that gay athletes have the same opportunities as straight athletes, is to create an exclusively gay community with exceptions for a small number of straight players,” the ruling states.

The ruling wasn’t entirely rosy though. “Coughenour also ruled that the athletic association failed to prove it should not be subjected to public-accommodation laws as ‘a distinctly private organization.”  So, now we’ve got a federal judge determining such matters.  That is a truly chilling thought.  Shouldn’t the simple question be whether or not the group takes state money.

Let NAGAA set its own rules.  Indeed, let all private athletic associations do the same.  If a group of gay guys want to play softball with a group consisting primarily of their fellow gays, then more power to them.  It’s their choice.  Isn’t this land of the free?  And isn’t that what freedom means?

UPDATE:   John Yoo gets it: (more…)

Well, last night after returning from a wonderful dinner with my Dad and his wife (including the best dirty martini I’ve had in a long while (thank you, Maureen!)), I went through my e-mail and read articles I had previously just skimmed on the decision of the law firm King & Spalding to end its representation of the “Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.”  While I was aware of HRC’s involvement in the efforts to intimidate influence the law firm, dubbing them a “hissy fit” in a previous post, it seems the left-wing organization threw more than just a “hissy fit,” but instead mounted a concerted effort to get the law firm to drop this bipartisan group of federal elected officials as a client.

Via the diligent and determined Jennifer Rubin, we learn of phone conversations her Washington Post colleague Greg Sargent had with the liberal outfit:

The latest round got started this morning, when the Weekly Standardpublished an internal email from the Human Rights Campaign detailing that HRC had “contacted many of the firm’s clients” as part of its campaign to get King and Spalding to drop the case. Right wing bloggers, such as Jennifer Rubin, are pouncing on this as proof that the left engaged in an “unprincipled campaign” of intimidation to deprive the House of Representatives of legal representation.

Far from being abashed about this campaign, Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, shared new details about it. He confirmed to me that his group did indeed contact King and Spalding clients to let them know that the group viewed the firm’s defense of DOMA as unacceptable.

You’d think they have better things to do with their time.  Instead of developing strategies to reach out to social conservatives and offer arguments about treating gay individuals with dignity or work with gay Republicans to develop better arguments about the merits of state recognition of same-sex unions, HRC has been busying itself trying to deprive an elected branch of the federal government of legal counsel in its defense of legislation enacted in accordance with the provisions of the United States Constitution.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder is defending “former Solicitor General Paul Clement, after gay rights advocates criticized his decision to take on the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court.”  Clement quit his job at King & Spalding when the firm dropped the case.

That HRC would go to such great lengths to get a law firm to drop its defense of DOMA come as no surprise to us nor to other gay people familiar with the work of this left-wing outfit.  They have long since stopped being, as Sargent styles them, a “gay advocacy group”.  They’re not advocating for gay people, but instead seeking to deprive their adversaries of the opportunity to defend their positions.  Indeed, they’re behaving as if their adversaries don’t even have a right to their defense.

And they’re celebrating a law firms decision that has earned it rebuke from jurists “on both sides of the ideological divide“. (more…)

As expected, some of our savvier readers understood why I posed the thought experiment about a hypothetical business decision in Wisconsin in a post yesterday.  I was addressing both the failure of the state of California to defend Proposition 8 and of the federal government to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Not to mention the hissy fit HRC and its allies threw when the House of Representatives attempted to retain the law firm of King and Spalding to defend the constitutionality of a law overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed by a (Democratic) President.

Now, I don’t like that law and grant that some of DOMA’s provisions may indeed violate the “full fail and credit” clause of the constitution.  I think Congress should overturn it.  But, it is the law of the land.

I have many more thoughts on this issue and expect to address them in due time.  But, my father is in town and family takes precedence over politics.  So, while he and his wife are taking a nap to recover from jet lag, I have a brief moment to blog — and to take care of other pressing tasks.

As always, Jennifer Rubin can be counted on for insightful observations on a controversial matter.   She has posted, by my count, five pieces on the matter. Calling DOMA “rotten legislation“, she still believes its supporters have the right to defend it and faults the left for favoring “politically bullying to deter lawyers from representing clients it doesn’t like”.  Also read her subsequent posts on why King & Spalding decided to drop their defense of DOMA here, here, here and here.

Glenn Reynolds has a mini-roundup here.

Stacey McCain wonders what happens “When You Give in to Thuggery” and places before us the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple that we all can understand what’s at stake:

It is important to understand that the heart of the question raised by the King & Spalding decision is not whether we approve or disapprove of homosexuality, or even whether we support or oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. What is at issue is whether the concept of “gay rights” should empower advocates of that agenda to bully and intimidate their critics.

John Hinderaker faults the left for politicizing the practice of law. (more…)

In 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to enact a non-discrimination law that prevented companies from firing individuals based on their sexual orientation.

Now, imagine if you will, a socially conservative business owner in rural Wisconsin who learns that a hard-working and  very reliable employee is gay.  In a misguided (but, from his point of view, well-meaning) action, this employer offers to enroll his worker in a conversion therapy program.  He refuses.   Their confrontation creates tension between the two, resulting in a decline in the employee’s work performance.  The employer fires him.

With the help of the ACLU and Fair Wisconsin, the employee takes the employer to court, contending the employer discriminated against the employee because he was gay (in violation of the 1982 statute).  The Alliance Defense Fund hears of the case and offers not just to defend the employer — but also to challenge the constitutionality of the Badger State’s 1982 law.

The Fund turns to the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to make a case for the employer’s rights of free association as well as his liberty and property interests.  Seeing this case as an opportunity to strike down not just the 1982 Wisconsin law, but other state mandates on employers’ rights, a number of libertarian groups join the suit.

Accepting these libertarian arguments, Governor Scott Walker and state Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen elect not to defend the law.

Now, while I contend that the libertarian argument may well have constitutional merit, I believe Walker and Van Hollen would be wrong not to defend the state’s law.

Before I write a post on a related matter, let me ask you, our readers to guess that related matter and why I offer this hypothetical.

NB: Tweaked the piece since I first posted it in order to improve the flow and make my point clearer.