Texas v. Johnson … v. Berg

Print This Post


Clark is an anarchocapitalist, a reader, and a man of mystery. He's not a neoreactionary, but he is Nrx-curious 'til graduation. All he wants for Christmas is for everyone involved in the police state to get a fair trial and a free hanging. Follow him at @clarkhat

68 Responses

  1. The Invisible Man says:

    “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more… than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

    [I saw hate in a graveyard — Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”

  2. That Anonymous Coward says:

    If it offends you it HAS to be illegal, and you are totally in the right to stop it.
    It would be nice if people could learn that they have no right to not be offended that gives them superpowers.
    Hopefully there will be a settlement and it will come from the Chief and not the citizens, stupid needs to hurt. As the police & courts like to say, ignorance of the law is no excuse… it is a shame that a representative of the law is that ignorant about what he represents.

  3. Mel says:

    One thing, it seemed to me, that Plato never mentioned in _The Republic_ was what happened when inevitably the Philosopher Kings got the schmo education. I had only thought it applied to federal politics.

  4. Dan Weber says:

    The article is vague about from where the flag was removed. Was it displayed on his personal property?

  5. albert says:

    The truth, indeed, is stranger than fiction.

    There are lots of countries that have anti-flag-desecration laws, like bastions of democracy such as China, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and even many European countries. Asst Chief Berg could move to one of those, and legally persecute flag burners.

    It's the bit about intelligent people being barred from police jobs that threw me. 'Becoming bored with the job after all that expensive training' is true of ANY job.
    I say hire smarter people who might be less likely to beat homeless folks to death, or shoot folks in the back in self defense, or conduct illegal searches, or harass or intimidate folks.

    It looks like Berg is bored with his job. There's plenty of work in Afghanistan and Iraq. He could put some of that 'expensive training' to use.

    I gotta go…

  6. Anton Sirius says:

    "It's the bit about intelligent people being barred from police jobs that threw me. 'Becoming bored with the job after all that expensive training' is true of ANY job."

    It sounds awfully close to 'Get pregnant and leave after all that expensive training' too…

  7. Grey Ghost says:

    If you have to have a law to force people to honor a flag that allegedly stands for freedom, you have missed a very important point.

  8. Dion starfire says:

    A great example of the saying "those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it".

    I seriously hope he doesn't settle for a "no charges, no lawsuit" deal. At the very least, he should receive an apology on behalf of the city, and the arresting officer should attend classes about the extent and limits of police authority.

  9. Mike Repella says:

    When I read the "Intelligent People are barred…" link I went in thinking the cops didn't want someone with an IQ of 135 or higher. When the article said the guy in question was a 124 my opinion of cops went even lower. I would think they would want 124 IQs all day long. But then it might take away a lot of the fun we have watching the police act silly.

  10. Carl says:

    Thank goodness we don't live in the kind of country that is so afraid of legitimate dissent that it forces elementary school children to daily pledge allegiance long before they know what the words "pledge" and "allegiance" mean, that it constantly performs its national anthem, where national flags are everywhere, and where the armed forces are fetishized.

  11. PonyAdvocate says:

    Assuming that the flag itself is Brubaker's property, and that he displayed it on the side of his own house, it seems to me that Berg made himself liable to criminal prosecution for theft and ancillary offenses, and civil prosecution for trespass.

    And where, if anywhere, does "desecration and insults to the American flag" actually appear in the criminal statutes of Pennsylvania?

  12. "Barred by law" seems inaccurate. "Barred by policy, and that policy turns out not to be illegal" would be a more hones description.

  13. Ken White says:

    When I was a rookie federal prosecutor, occasionally I had "phone duty," which meant fielding calls asking for legal advice from all the federal criminal agencies in the huge Central District of California.

    Once an NCIS agent got very upset with me because I wouldn't initiate a federal prosecution against a neighbor for flying the flag improperly.

    This somewhat colors my view of the NCIS television series.

  14. I'm offended by Mr Berg's action. I demand his arrest.

  15. Steven H. says:

    @Mike Repella

    Note that the IQ cutoff wasn't 124. Guy in question scored 33 on test (IQ 125), upper limit was 27 on the test.

    Quick Googling mentions that 22 on that test corresponds to IQ 105, by the by. So it sounds like their upper IQ limit is closer to 115 than to 124….

  16. Don says:

    @Dan Webber: The linked article doesn't specify where the flag was hung but the picture and quotes certainly make it seem like it was on the side of his house.

  17. Clark says:

    @Jens Fiederer:

    "Barred by law" seems inaccurate.

    Agreed; your rephrasing is better than my original phrasing.

    "Barred by policy, and that policy turns out not to be illegal" would be a more honest description.

    Every time I read a piece of feedback that has this flavor, I think it deserves a footnote: "I, ____(commenters name here)___, am an antisocial dick, and instead of merely pointing out that _______(poster's name here)____ is incorrect, I think that the best way forward is to treat the other party as if he – with malice aforethought – decided to lie."

    …but I'm not 100% sure that that's what you meant to convey by using the word "honest", so I won't say it.

    I will, however, suggest that in the future, assuming good will and using a phrasing that emphasizes that assumption is (a) more likely to cause agreement to be reached, and (b) generally just more polite behavior in this thing we call "society".

  18. Clark says:

    @Anton Sherwood

    I'm offended by Mr Berg's action. I demand his arrest.

    I second that emotion.

  19. Ben E. says:

    @Ken White:

    When I was a rookie federal prosecutor, occasionally I had "phone duty," which meant fielding calls asking for legal advice from all the federal criminal agencies in the huge Central District of California.

    This sounds like the premise of a very successful half hour sit-com…

  20. WDS says:

    I'm a little disappointed that the reporter/news station never did enough background research to point out that this was Constitutionally protected speech. It's not like the Texas v. Johnson ruling was page 9 news when it happened.

  21. Via Angus says:

    I am fenced by this sign. It is bad. But I will fight for the man cow's right to show it. http://tinyurl.com/kcenpco

  22. akahige says:

    So given the decision in Texas v. Johnson, how can he be "facing misdemeanor charges" (as the article stated)?

    According to the Wikipedia page, that decision invalidated desecration laws in 48 of the 50 states — but it doesn't mention the other two. (And I haven't been able to identify them through cursory research.) Were there no anti-desecration laws in them (whichever ones they were)? Or is there some other explanation…?

    @Don: It's not just the quotes in the story. The photo of the side of the house with the inverted flag on it also makes it seem like it was on the side of the house. :)

  23. Lizard says:

    Flag burning is a good test for those who claim "offensiveness" is grounds for banning/limiting speech.[1] Ask them if they think it should include flag burning, or "Piss Christ", and then watch if they say, "Yes, if those things cause emotional pain, they should be banned or restricted" (which makes them idiots, but at least consistent and honest idiots), or if they mumble something about "that's different, because privilege" and scurry off to find a forum where they won't be asked any questions (questioning people's tenets or principles is "derailing", and that's Bad).

    [1]And to be fair, those who claim flag burning should be banned because it's offensive should be asked their opinion about the use of Native American mascots, the Confederate flag, and similar symbols they might not find offensive, but others might. I will not say there is *no* person who holds to a universal standard that any claim of offense is valid and should be respected, but I have not met one yet.

  24. Business in Athens says:


    Regarding the desecration laws in the 48 states, it seems to me that there is the possibility that the other two states did not have any such laws in place.

  25. Joe Blow says:

    The real problem with that guy with a 124 IQ is that he's dumb. You heard me right. Dumb.

    It says that after "flunking" the police test for having a too-high IQ., he went and took a job as a prison guard, which he's held ever since (1996-present). Dude must have *really* wanted to wear a blue uniform. Good thing he got that prison guard job; otherwise he'd be repairing Maytag washing machines…

  26. nm says:

    Joe Blow —
    Being a prison guard is a better financial decision than almost every other job. He's smart, but he probably doesn't care much about his fellow man.

  27. albert says:

    @ Joe Blow
    Because of privatization, prisons are a growth industry here. Probably more secure than police career, but perhaps as dangerous.

    "…he probably doesn't care much about his fellow man….". Not quite fair to say that. If he didn't care much about his fellow man, he'd become a Congressman, or an investment banker.

    I gotta go…

  28. Noscitur a sociis says:

    "And where, if anywhere, does "desecration and insults to the American flag" actually appear in the criminal statutes of Pennsylvania?"

    18 Pa.C.S. § 2102.

  29. Sami says:

    I am, on some level, kind of outraged and offended by the IQ limits for cops idea. The least they could do is tell people in advance.

  30. Careless says:

    Is that "American Indian" a natural blond?

  31. Rob says:

    albert • May 19, 2014 @2:49 pm

    @ Joe Blow
    Because of privatization overwhelming government meddling, prisons are a growth industry here.


  32. Mark - Lord of the Albino Squirrels says:

    In Chief Berg's defense, intelligent people are barred by law from becoming police in many jurisdictions, and so we should perhaps not hold the chief to the same standards that we would use for a decent member of productive society.

    Your phrasing here seems to emphasize a few assumptions.
    1) People who score 105 or below on an IQ test are unintelligent.
    2) Unintelligent people are not decent members of productive society

    I believe you chose your phrasing – with rhetoric aforethought – in order to persuade or illuminate an issue…

    I will, however, suggest that in the future, assuming good will and using a phrasing that emphasizes that assumption is (a) more likely to cause agreement to be reached, and (b) generally just more polite behavior in this thing we call "society".

    Somebody might get offended.

  33. Kaemaril says:

    (Not a lawyer, just interested. Please be gentle :) )

    18 Pa.C.S. § 2102 – Desecration of flag

    Does the fact this state law is still around provide "cover" for the local cops?

    If this cop were to be sued, would he be able to claim qualified immunity based on the fact he was merely enforcing state law, and hey – he's no constitutional lawyer, how was he supposed to know that that statute had been laughed out of court over 20 years ago and should have been taken off the books?

    Or is this such settled law that the officer should have known that this was a bad arrest, and therefore has no immunity?

    For that matter, does the exception – "To any act permitted by the statutes of the United States" – mean that statute did not apply in this case anyway since the act was protected by the first amendment?

  34. Luke G says:

    @Mark, Squirrel Lord:

    With regard to your points,

    1) People with an IQ of 105 or below AREN'T very intelligent. 100 is average. They may not be stupid, or anti-intelligent, but by nature of being around average or below they aren't "intelligent" either. You wouldn't call an average height person "tall" just because they're not tiny, after all.

    2) Unintelligent people CAN be decent and productive members of society. Most of them are, because most people basically get along with the world. However, they do so while not being intelligent- and putting exclusively not-intelligent people into an organization with the power to jail people, giving them guns and tasers with which to subdue and shoot people that they judge (in their intelligence) to need subduing and shooting, and extend them all kinds of benefits and immunities based on notions like them being "trained observers" and "knowing the law"? No, that is NOT a promising area to exclude intelligent people from.

  35. MrSpkr says:

    Why oh why can't my clients have fun cases like this?

  36. WDS says:

    Are you anywhere near PA? It sounds like this guy in unrepresented. You might be able to get you a fun case.

  37. David C says:

    If ignorance of the law is not an excuse for a common citizen, it cannot be an excuse for those whose job it is to enforce the law. Berg should have known the law was invalid even if it was still on the books.

    And, of course, the legislature should have repealed the law, to prevent this exact situation.

  38. Warren Vita says:

    @akahige – Alaska & Wyoming didn't have flag desecration laws in place, thus the ruling didn't affect them. I don't think any state has actually repealed its laws about flag burning, but any arrest/conviction would be unconstitutional, even in central PA.

  39. Clark says:

    @David C

    If ignorance of the law is not an excuse for a common citizen, it cannot be an excuse for those whose job it is to enforce the law.

    Nice theory.

    That and twenty cents will get you a police beating and the video on your phone deleted.

  40. Kratoklastes says:

    @Mark – Lord of the Albino Squirrels : have you ever had a conversation with a person of genuinely, verifiably average intelligence? That is to say, someone who tested 100 (+/- 10[1]) on a formal IQ test, or who has the cognitive characteristics of the median participant in ALLS surveys?

    Because here's the thing: what you think is 'average' or 'normal' is probably nothing of the sort.

    Anecdotes make bad data, but I think I'm broadly representative of my social class; literally nobody I know would fail to get to ALLS "Level 5"… and that would – sadly – put them in the top 5% of the adult population according to ALLS Survey results. And ALLS Level 5 requires nothing more than the ability to 'extract relevant details from a moderately complex piece of text – e.g., a job advertisement'.

    You're most likely the same: what that means is that you go around with a mental model of 'normal'/'average' that wildly over-estimates the cognition of the median individual.

    This post is already getting to TL;DR territory for folks schooled after the 1970s, so here are the relevant citations for the assertion that <5% of the adult population shows "high level" (level 5) skills in ANY of the four tested areas in the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills (ALL) Survey (those tested areas are: problem-solving, document literacy, prose literacy and numeracy).

    OECD and Statistics Canada (2011) Literacy for Life: Further Results from the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey: Table 2.3 [p 61] gives the level 4/5 (grouped) breakdown by country.

    The decomposition of the grouped level 4/5 data will be the same (broadly) as in Table 1.3 on p21 of US Department of Education (1997), National Centre for Educational Statistics Working Paper No. 97-33 "Adult Literacy: An International Perspective".


    [1] given that the IQ distribution is designed to have a mean of 100 and an S.D. of 15, a score of 110 is not statistically significantly different from the average. (To prove this to yourself, perform a t-test of the hypothesis that the difference between the scores is significantly different from zero, using the' standard' significance level of 2.5%).

    [2] I'm assuming symmetry in ALLS results (i.e., mean=median), and broad correlation between IQ and ALLS outcome: if IQ is a test of 'raw' cognitive capacity and ALLS is a test of the ability to absorb education, this seems uncontroversial.

  41. Kratoklastes says:

    @Luke G – 100 is a low bar; people of 'average' intelligence are pretty fucking stupid, taken as a mass.

    It's not just me – delve into any of the international comparison tables that appear in the results of the various Adult Literacy and Life Skills surveys, and prepare to be fucking horrified. If you locate the median individual, you will find that they score "3" or less on all tasks. That is the same as being unable to properly understand the instructions on a bottle of prescription medicine; unable to calculate an arbitrary percentage (i.e., other than really easy ones like 10% or 50%)… shit like that. We're not taking about an inability to explain Fermat's Last Theorem or the Bayes-Theorem representation of the solution to the Monty Hall Problem; we're talking about the inability to add fractions.

    Level 3 is basically understanding that "c-a-t" is a word, and that the word means a smallish fluffy domesticated animal. It does not extend to understanding "These tablets are not to be fed to your cat under any circumstances; doing so may induce adverse consequences, including but not limited to…".

    It's not the fault of Mr Median that he's cognitively fucked; he spends the most important 12 years of his cognitive development in State schools, and thereafter he's so busy trying to make ends meet that he's too exhausted (and malnourished) to think about anything.

  42. Mark - Lord of the Albino Squirrels says:

    @Luke G. and Kratoklastes

    I am not sure what in my comment either of you are arguing against/for/lateral to.

    That said, I would strongly disagree with both of you that intelligence is measured in a meaningful way by any IQ test. That goes double for a survey not designed to assess intelligence (the ALLS). As for how accurate an "intelligence test" is that carries a reward (employment, money, and power) for a certain result? Dubious at best.

    Finally, it feels strange that nobody on this blog has stated that very issue: the structure of the NYPD intelligence test appears to encourage cheating. I would have thought a structural incentive to cheat for money and power – starts with c, rhymes with orruption – would resonate for Clark more than "Cops are dumb."

    Maybe that will be a different post.

  43. You know, we are looking to hire a new police chief…

    Do you think this gentleman would be interested? He seems like just the sort of chap we like around here.

  44. @Anton Sherwood

    I'm offended by Mr Berg's action. I demand his arrest.

    I second that emotion.

    Clark is only supporting a call for the cop to be arrested?

    Did someone sedate Clark and not tell us?

  45. scav says:

    When I was a rookie federal prosecutor, occasionally I had "phone duty," which meant fielding calls asking for legal advice from all the federal criminal agencies in the huge Central District of California.

    Ken, did you ever feel tempted to give them Jim Carrey's legal advice from Liar Liar?

    You want some legal advice?
    Stop breaking the law, asshole!

  46. Cat G says:

    It's amazing that, despite multiple studies showing that none of these things impact performance of police officers, they are still requirements. (IQ tests, MMPI, etc.) Sure, an IQ might give a nice, general idea of the functional capability of someone – but it's not a great test and it does not just measure intelligence but also cultural and social knowledge.

    Consistently, one of the most important things that helps determine future performance of law enforcement officers is their experience as a rookie, and who they are partnered with as a mentor. Their intelligence (or comparative normality with everyone else regarding it) isn't going to do much if they are paired up and learn the finer points of policing from, say, Mark Fuhrman.

    Also, regarding the Chief getting all bent out of shape over a flag? Yeah… look, I didn't follow the news in the 80s that much (busy going to school, y'know) but even I know about Texas vs. Johnson. The United States (as a country) and its flag (as a symbol) are strong enough that they can take the occassional protestor doing bad things to the flag. If only the government would stop doing things that made people want to do things like burn a flag…

    As for "natural blond" Native American… yeah, well, genetics. Melting pool, etc, etc. Example – I'm related to a tribe of Aristook and all I got was a pronounced difficulty growing a beard. (Great-grandfather maternal side.) "Native American heritage" doesn't mean "living on reservation" just like "Irish heritage" doesn't mean "speaks Gaelic" or "Italian heritage" doesn't mean "likes a good lasagna".

  47. Dan Weber says:

    Luke G, you might want to google up the "Stanford Prison Experiment."

    Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff

  48. The Wanderer says:


    Nice to see some statistics and other data on it (however questionable the tests underlying them may be).

    My entire immediate family, and at least part of our social circle, is MENSA-eligible – i.e., in the top 2% of IQ scores nationwide – though we haven't bothered to join, since membership seems to correlate more with intellectual wankerism than with much of anything worthwhile.

    Assuming IQ scores correlate in any meaningful way with actual intelligence (and I know this is a questionable assumption), this implies that 98% of the population is stupider than we are… and we don't feel all that intelligent, really.

    When I let myself think about it, the idea that 98% of people out there are stupider than I am is, quite frankly, terrifying

  49. James says:

    @The Wanderer: A clever person once said to me that MENSA struck them as an organization that took your money in exchange for saying "you're a smart fellow."

    It's also demonstrated that very intelligent people tend to underestimate how smart they are. (Less intelligent people tend to overestimate how smart they are North America, but not as much in other cultures). SMBC has it here: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2177#comic

  50. Castaigne says:

    Then with Texas v. Johnson, this police chief and his county will learn a very expensive lesson when the conviction is overturned and damages are ordered to be paid to Joshua Brubaker.

  51. alastair says:

    "Ignorance is the Law is not an excuse"

    Unless you are 'Da law in this 'ere town'

  52. mcinsand says:

    The bottom line if you live in Blair County, Pa: make sure that your flag is well hung.

  53. melk says:


    That and twenty cents will get you a police beating and the video on your phone deleted.

    While the beating can't be ameliorated easily, modifying your phone so that using the default "delete this video" action is actually a "hide the video so it looks deleted, but publish it immediately" might be do-able.

  54. EPWJ says:

    I' m glad Indians are not a sensitive lot

  55. G. Filotto says:

    Or, one can always rely on superior reflexes. :-)

  56. albert says:

    @The Wanderer
    "intellectual wankerism" – LOL I will steal that (don't sue me)

    According to an ostensibly legit survey, most Americans believe that they are 'better than average drivers', yet there are 22 fully developed countries with fewer traffic deaths per year per number of vehicles.

    I gotta go…

  57. Steven H. says:


    1) Per year per number of vehicles is a pretty bad measure of accident rates. Much better are per million passenger-miles.

    2) It's quite possible for most Americans to be above average if the drivers in the other 170-odd (all but the 22 above) countries really suck.

    3) No, I don't believe that most Americans are above average drivers. But then I don't believe that most Americans can reliably distinguish between "your" and "you're"….

  58. David says:

    The higher accident rate might just indicate that Americans have better aim.

  59. David C says:

    1) Per year per number of vehicles is a pretty bad measure of accident rates. Much better are per million passenger-miles

    It's better, but even accidents per passenger-mile is flawed, because the passengers don't matter. We're measuring driver ability, not safety.

    Also, even accidents per "driver-mile" is flawed because it doesn't take things like traffic conditions into account. Person A might be a better driver than person B, yet get into more accidents per mile because person A drives in rush-hour traffic while person B drives empty roads.

    Furthermore, even controlling for traffic conditions, weather, road conditions, wild animals, etc.; it is perfectly possible for a country to have over half of their drivers be better than the worldwide average, yet have more accidents, if their bad drivers are REALLY bad.

    Also: I dare any officer to try to delete the video on my phone, because it can't take video. Or pictures. It barely makes calls. I'm also confused as to where the twenty cents comes in.

  60. albert says:

    @Steven H, David,David C:

    Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    You guys are correct. Accurate data is often misleading. It is interesting to look at world traffic deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) though. The introduction of seat belts, air bags, and crush zones had significant effects on deaths in the US, but we still lost ~89 folks/day in 2011. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

    The point is, we think were above average, stats show we're not.

    I gotta go…

  61. Steven H. says:


    From your first link, I determined that the USA has about half the motor vehicle deaths its population suggests it should have.
    Given that we drive more than most other nations (if only because we have more cars than most of the people of the world), that suggests pretty strongly that our death-rate per billion km-vehicle is probably considerably better than "average" for the world.

    Which would make even the "average" American driver "above average" by world standards.

    Which says nothing whatsoever about Dunning-Kruger effect on American drivers, of course. Most of them probably aren't thinking in terms of world-wide average….

  62. albert says:

    What I find most interesting, is that if most of one's sample population thinks they're 'above average', then they don't know what 'average' is, or they don't want to admit that they are 'average', let alone 'below average'.

    That said, driving ability might be easier to measure than intelligence.

    Rather than 'intelligence', the best test for prospective police candidates might be constructed to measure ones ability to deal with real life police situations, for which IQ tests might be relatively useless. IQ tests might predict how quickly one could learn police procedures, but police are often required to 'think on their feet'. Does testing include this?

    In my limited experience, I have found state police to be better trained than the local variety. I think it has to do with human relations. As for sheriffs, well, you just roll the dice…

    I gotta go…

  63. xbradtc says:

    The comparison to Serrano's "Piss Christ" is a flawed one. No authority argued that Serrano should be punished for his work.

    Instead, the argument was that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund the display of it. That's a completely different matter than the police unlawfully seizing property and unconstitutionally punishing political speech.

  64. Luke G says:

    @Dan Weber: I'm fairly sure I've read that the popular presentation of the Stanford Prison Experiment is a pretty heavy exaggeration of the supposed effects where the guards went nuts and turned psycho. Even still, that was an artificial environment and doesn't change the fact that most average people in the real world DO get along just fine and function without too many big issues (assuming that's the point of mine you were responding to).

    @xbradtc: Agreed, but there's a pervasive mindset that "the state decided not to fund my project" is equivalent to "the state prevented me from doing my project."

  65. andrews says:

    pervasive mindset that "the state decided not to fund my project" is equivalent to "the state prevented me from doing my project."

    There are many people who do not think clearly.

    Compare, "the state decided not to fund my church project" to "the state prevented me from doing my project". Yet we still have the Establishment Clause and churches continue to operate.

  66. Dan says:

    Terrifyingly we had a MINISTER (of parliament) FOR EDUCATION, who went on the record as being horrified by the fact that "Half of our schools are BELOW AVERAGE"!

    The resulting piss taking in the newspapers was merciless.

    Of course "Average" is silent as to mean,median or modal value, so he could have been trying to express something more subtle, but this is a politician, so a safe bet is that the statement was as stupid as it sounded.

    Regards, Dan.

  67. AR+ says:

    I feel it is important to point out that an inverted flag is a distress signal, which means both that the cop's initial response should have been to assume an emergency was in progress, and that the person flying the flag might actually be breaking the law for raising a false alarm.

  1. May 20, 2014

    […] Much as fragile feelings may be given what's considered by some to be short shrift here, the similarly strongly held feelings of the most manly men are no better. Via Clark at Popehat: […]