Note: I hope you’ve enjoyed this little deviation from my normal work into the realm of the absurd as we all deal with the fallout of entitled dipshit Hollywood writers wanting more money to keep ChatGPT from writing first drafts for network sitcoms. This is the last time I try this shit.—CLS

ONE. A final letter never sent.

SHG: Continue reading →

In a curiously blind assertion, Michelle Goldberg offers the right condemnation.

What I find most fascinating about the lawsuit, though, is the glimpse it offers into how national and state-level political dynamics empower the most fanatical members of a community to impose their will on everyone else.

True words, though the truth runs the gamut from deciding that “Gender Queer” is an appropriate book for a junior high library to demanding the removal of Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse-Five.” Continue reading →

Back in the good old days of the Drug War, laws were enacted to require drug testing of employees by employers. The twofold argument was fairly obvious and uncontroversial. If employees were using drugs, they were breaking the law. And if employees were using drugs, they were impaired in the performance of their job. Dr. Kevin Boehnke, a research prof at the University of Michigan medical school, argues that in light of the legality of medical marijuana, in particular, and gaps in the rationale, in general, the requirement that employees undergo drug testing is “absurd.”

Dr. Boehnke, ironically a cannabis researcher, suffers from fibromyalga, and uses cannabis to “manage his symptoms.” Nonetheless, when he was hired by Michigan, he was required to take a drug test. Crazy? Continue reading →

As a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve known my share of people who used drugs. Because of this, I’ve been ambivalent about the legalization of marijuana. While it’s use in the Drug War has been a disaster, bad enough to trump whatever other concerns may arise, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other concerns, and they aren’t working out very well.

Ross Douthat raises some of the reasons why, he contends, the legalization of weed is a failure. Continue reading →

Many would prefer that guns not be allowed in the hands of anyone, but certainly not in the hands of young people between the ages of 18 and 20, a long-standing restriction on the right to purchase handguns. Judge Robert Payne in the Eastern District of Virginia, however, held that such a restriction was unconstitutional.

The rationale, under other circumstances, might well be one that received full-throated support from progressives, holding that 18-to-20-year-olds are “people” as referred to in the Second Amendment. After all, are they not “people” when it comes to voting? Are they not “people” when it comes to free speech, search and seizure and the right to remain silent? Surely, we want them to be “people” under the law when it comes to the plethora of rights protected by the Constitution otherwise. If so, then aren’t they “people” for the Second Amendment as well? Continue reading →

Granted, the law school at CUNY, City University of New York, isn’t Yale or Stanford. Still, it’s a law school and many of its graduates will go on to become lawyers, often as public defenders. As such, they will find themselves in the trenches, their efforts spent on behalf of defendants who desperately need competent, if not excellent, representation. Much of the time, they will find those efforts rejected by judges who will not be persuaded by their most passionate beliefs.

Will they be capable of serving their clients? Will they be capable of tolerating judges who rule against them? Will they be capable of working within the decorum required of lawyers in the trenches? Their behavior at graduation raises a serious doubt. Continue reading →

About a month ago, All-American swimmer Riley Gaines was supposed to speak at San Francisco State University. It did not go well for her, or free speech, after all.

“I give my speech and, of course, there’s many protesters in the room. But I welcome protesters. I welcome people with different perspectives,” Gaines said. “That’s why I choose to go somewhere like San Francisco. I know a lot of them won’t agree with me but that’s who I want to get in front of. That’s who I want to change their minds to see from my perspective. So there was lots of protesters and it was relatively civil. There was some heckling. But it was good. Continue reading →

Norms are what society organically says they are. Or at least, that’s what they were. If most men in society removed their hats indoors, then removing hats indoor was the norm. It’s never been clear to me why men remove their hats indoors, or why women don’t, but that’s the norm. One can challenge norms they find unacceptable, but that doesn’t make the challenger’s choice the new norm. It’s the opposite, even if the norm is silly, outdated or contrary to the challengers beliefs. It’s not that norms are set to offend those who don’t like them. Norms are nothing more than what most people do, whether for good reasons or not. It’s how we get along with each other. Continue reading →

ONE. A letter never sent.

SHG:

I hope this letter finds you in good spirits, because I’ve got a bone to pick with the universe, and you’re the closest thing I’ve got to a cosmic complaint department. You see, I thought I could escape the madness of this writer’s strike in LA, but my grand plan went awry. And whose fault is that? Nobody’s but my own, I suppose. But still, I’d like to vent. Continue reading →

The killing of Jordan Neely has become one of those cases where mythology has swiftly consumed the unpleasant task of actual thought. While the unduly passionate inexplicably decided that standing on subway tracks chanting about lynchings would somehow help Neely, the district attorney of New York County, Alvin Bragg, has announced that Penny will be charged with Manslaughter in the Second Degree.

There are four crimes with which Penny could have potentially been charged. The first two fall under Murder in the Second Degree, whether under an intentional murder theory or a “depraved indifference” theory. There was no evidence that Penny intended to kill Neely, and the crux of “depraved indifference” murder is conduct that is so clearly deadly that the perpetrator knew it created a “grave risk of death.” The classic example is shooting into a crowd, where the shooter may not intend to kill any particular individual, but recognizes that his actions would almost certainly result in someone being killed. That wasn’t the case here either. Continue reading →