Judge Jim Gray writes a weekly column called The Functional Libertarian, which we publish here. One of those articles, The Police as Noble Servants , had quite a reaction from many IPR and Facebook readers, so I invited readers to write opposing viewpoints. Three people did, which we published here , and sent along to Judge Gray. He sent me this response last night.
Hi Jill,
Thank you for promoting this particular discussion, as well as others, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond, although my response is somewhat delayed because I have been traveling.
With one exception, I believe that all of the comments you forwarded to me are consistent with my column. The exception is my comment about the police being “authorized” to arrest practically anyone for any reason. Actually, that comment is true, but not well phrased. The law, at least in California, is that if a police officer says that a person is under arrest, it is a violation of law to resist that officer, even if it is later shown that there was no probably cause, or even if it was done maliciously. That is what I meant to say, but since my editors limit me in space, I was not able to articulate the thought as well as I would have liked.
Otherwise, I am simply requesting our readers again to read my column, because it contains four specific criticisms of the police that are in some fashion the subject of each of the responses that you forwarded to me.
The first is that I lamented that, unlike when I was growing up, it is almost unheard of today that we see the police as our friends. Many of the responses also elaborated upon this, but all of those responses were consistent with my message.
Second, I said that our nation’s failed and hopeless policy of Drug Prohibition has in many regards separated the police from those wham they are attempting to serve, to the extent that many communities now see the police as an occupying force. Many of the responses elaborated upon this truly regretful situation, but they were completely consistent with my column.
Third, I expressed deep concern that the police are too often, and wrongly, being used as a revenue-gathering tool in issuing traffic citations. As many of the responses stated, that is truly a corruption of our criminal justice system, but all of those comments are also consistent with the thrust of my column.
And, finally, I stated that the police, just like us judges and other responsible officials in government, should and must be held to a higher standard of scrutiny because of our positions. Although I didn’t see any of the responses directly address that issue, it is inherent in all of their comments.
So, yes, some police have exceeded their authority, and even notably abused it. But for two reasons I wrote my column as I did, and I am not at all backing away from it. First, most of the police I have been involved with have lived up to our high standards, and, as such, they are entitled to our commendations and appreciation. And, second, there are two ways of improving police conduct. One is public criticisms and examples of police abuse, as exemplified by many of the responses that you forwarded to me. But the other is, as witnessed by my column, approaching them from a position of appreciation and respect, but reinforcing the unassailable fact that they must be held to the high standards that we all expect and even demand.
Finally, I reaffirm that most of the police officers I have been involved with make me, and should make all of us proud. This situation reminds me of the time I settled the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the country. As a part of the settlement, counsel for the plaintiff demanded that I include an order that no priest in either Los Angeles or Orange County be allowed to hug a child. I categorically refused this demand because, first of all, I believe that people hugging each other (within definite limits) is truly a good thing. And second, I was not at all going to be a party of tarring all Catholic priests with the hideous brush of sexual molestation that was only being perpetrated by a few. It is the same with the police. Yes, as most of the responses stated, there are many too many examples of police misconduct, and worse. But they remain in the minority. And I hope that all of our readers not get jaded and keep a perspective in that regard, and that they join me in offering our appreciation for the dedication and integrity of the strong majority of our law enforcement officers.
Again, than you for continuing the discussion of this and other important issues, and also providing me with the opportunity of providing further comments.
Life is Good!
JJG
Let’s see if we get a response to that one too 🙂
I’m afraid it might put me to sleep, but other than that, yes.
Yes. Though The Human Condition’d be great, too… 😉
Also a great name for a band.
PF, I’m not sure if “guide” is the optimal word, but trauma and fear is what drives the human condition. Rs and Ds are quite effective in manipulating fear syndromes of their constituencies, although occasionally the most effective ones also inspire.
My working theory is that Ls would be most effective if they could distill the core of the L approach into a more attractive, far less negative message of peace, which transcends the morass of fear that grips humanity.
Bubba actually said “I feel your pain,” and that sort of empathy – if laid on a bit thickly – could also go a long way in advancing liberty. If we want less pain and more peace, liberty is the best path. If we want freedom, then we should practice freedom, not force.
Denyinig/sublimating the traumatic nature of life as we know it seems the wrong direction to me.
True. They are generally not a good guide to public policy either.
PF, hah! Traumas are tricky and unpredictable.
Sure. And my first memory of my whole life that I can cleary remember happens to be an alcoholic bum wandering/stumbling into our apartment (I don’t know why it was unlocked) and passing out in a pool of vomit.
Perhaps that experience made me the strident prohibitionist I am today 🙂
PF, yes, well, it didn’t seem like much of a reply, and it seemed irrelevant. I shared my FIRST experience with a gun nut. I get that not all gun nuts are haters, I trust that the vast majority isn’t and have not said otherwise. I simply recognize that if you are 5 years old and the first gun you see is being waved about by a deranged lunatic raving about mud people, that might create some bias in one’s perception.
Once again, to quote Jackson, “One bad apple don’t spoil the whole bunch, girl.”
You referred to your personal experience with “gun nuts” and Marc replied to that.
rc, I’m quite flexible on my principles. I am an ally of whoever wants to move the ball in the direction I want it to go in on whatever issue(s) they agree with me. I understand that you are inflexible when it comes to your aversion to “anarcho code words,” but as a flexible anarchist, I’m OK with that. I think you mean well and just want to make libertarianism be more rhetorically appealing to the masses. That’s a laudable goal. On the other hand my experience leads me to believe different approaches work with different groups of people, and among other libertarians I am much more apt to use my anarcho code words than I am with the general public. YMMV is the antithesis of inflexible. My attitude is YMMV.
mm: You must not leave your living room much.
me: Yes, assume that I’m in at-home hospice.
What that has to do with anything escapes me….
pf, OK with coming across as rhetorically fringy?
If so, ya know, I watched Atlas Shrugged Part II y’day. I LOLed when Hank Rearden said his inflexibility on his principles were like the principles involved in manufacturing his steel! As if non-material ideas were just like Newtonian physics.
Toxic! And false!
YMMV. I’m OK with that.
pf: I’d much rather discuss what if anything we can do about the huge and growing problem of out of control paramilitary police thuggery …
me: Agreed. Unfortunately, if the premise is off, the ways some talk about that dysfunction gets distorted and ineffective.
I don’t know of anyone — and certainly I and apparently Judge Gray — who doesn’t see that there’s such a thing as police brutality and overreach, as well as incompetence. Using anarcho codes words to highlight such dysfunction tends to make Ls sound fringy…to me! And I am one!
Yes, but as an interim measure I’d like to see various steps taken to rein them in.
Both of the nots are incorrect in that sentence.
I’ve read many reports of such. Don’t feel like tracking them down right now.
I support the rule of law. That doesn’t mean law enforcement necessarily has to be done by a monopolized and coercively funded clique. And there have been and continue to be places where it isn’t.
As for law enforcement moving in when a crime is reported or suspected, I know of way too many cases to name where cops have ignored (and even committed) crimes that they were well aware of, or which were reprted to them. At other times they take a report and then do nothing. Most of the time they can’t be bothered unless there is some money or a chance to tout their authoritah over someone in it for themselves personally. Usually they are pretty lazy. There have also been many court cases which have made clear they have no general or specifc obligation to protect regular citizens from crimes. There have been many cases where terrified people called 911 and the cops got there hours later after the violent and/or property crime took place, and the courts have ruled consistently that this is A-OK. If ever faced with a situation such as a mugging or home invasion you are much better off dialing 357 rather than 911.
In many cases it’s a lot more extensive than every corner.
There’s a lot more to it than that.
I’m not saying that the sole or main reason why we would ultimately be better off without monopoly/legally immune/coercivly funded law enforcement is because some cops are out of control. I am however saying that lots of cops are out of control and that we would ultimately be better off without monopoly/legally immune/coercivly funded law enforcement.
You are free to share whatever you want, but I don’t have a lot of interest in pointless quasiacademic debates about a theoretical future we are far, far away from at this moment. I’d much rather discuss what if anything we can do about the huge and growing problem of out of control paramilitary police thuggery and roid rage. In practical, short term terms. I don’t think we are anywhere close to eliminating police completely, as nice as I happen to think that would be. It seems to me to be yet another case of Warsaw Ghetto jews arguing about whether to open a deli in Brooklyn or a tailor shop in Queens after the war, even as the roundups to take people to concentration camps are starting to pick up pace around them. Nice fantasy, and maybe one day it can happen, but we have serious practical problems to deal with first. Let’s focus on those.
pf, it appears you may be changing the standard of inquiry, and twisting what I’m saying. First, I have no problem with a well-armed society. Have I said otherwise?
You seem to be saying that there’s no need for a police force…is that your position?
There may well not have been and are not today some places that didn’t/don’t have a police force. In US history, I don’t know of any, but surely there HAVE been wide areas where a cop was not resident. There has, however, always been a rule of law and law enforcement which can and does move in when a crime is reported/suspected.
I hope you’re not saying that anarcho-domestic-tranquility works because there’s not a cop on every corner everywhere…are you?
I share your concern about out-of-control cops, though. But I don’t even think Walter Block would say, “Some cops are out of control, therefore all police forces should be abolished tomorrow.” Is that what you are saying? If so, I’m happy to share why that is IMO poor logic….
Some of them are now. It’s a big world out there.
The principle hasn’t; an empowered thug class that is increasingly out of control and can get away with just about anything “legally” with very rare excption is a bad thing to have in a society. A well-armed society, on the other hand, tends to be secure and polite, as both historical example and modern studies have shown.
pf, times and places in the world is not NOW. Yes, there was a time of muskets and posse’s and pitchfork brigades. The technology of weaponry has changed rather dramatically since the predominantly agrarian social orders. There are more people in NYC today than the entire US population in 1800.
For me, your ancient examples prove nothing.
It’s not just a theory. There are many times and places in the world when it has worked.
Old TV shows =/= today’s reality.
You must not leave your living room much.
pf: …the job would be better handled by regular, well armed and trained citizens…
me: Oh,it may well be better handled by militia, in theory, at least. There’s no doubt in my mind that the police are highly prone to overstep/abuse their authority.
Andy Taylor was a good man, but even he sometimes played favorites. And that Barney Fife clearly was a hothead, displaying compensatory behavior week after week.
I’m glad to hear you’re writing another book, Norma Jean! I’m turning into such a critic of police, myself. I don’t know how I’d act if I got stopped. I’d probably be so nervous because of all the bad reports we hear, that I’d look guilty of something and be arrested “just because”. of that look. I hope things start to turn around because of all the bad publicity, but I’m afraid we’re a while away from that happening.
May I suggest another site with evidence of much police abuse and corruption… I have been researching this for the past 32years, and am putting together this research in a book I am writing, “Dishonored Badge, Broken Trust- The Immoral Consequences of So Called Moral Laws”. http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com.
Well, I guess some people consider subcontracting the defense of their neighborhoods from criminals to a quasi-military occupying force to be really dysfunctional as well, and believe the job would be better handled by regular, well armed and trained citizens who have other jobs and who are not substantially better armed or imbued with greater authority than most of their neighbors. I suppose it’s a matter of taste.
Duty? No. A really dysfunctional idea IMO? Dare I say in spades! 😉
So you feel like they have a duty to not hate? 🙂
PF, I think the better term is “discern” their beliefs. When I encounter a hater, for ex., I have to assume they are a raft of psychological pain, since for me it’s obvious to me that we’re all equal in our essence. Yes, most times I steer clear of haters, hoping that they work their pain out. Depending on how the spirit moves me, I might challenge the hater, encouraging him or her to come down off his or her psychological ledge.
If the hater is inclined to act on his or her hate, more forceful means might be indicated.
If the hater also claims to be L, I’d certainly urge other Ls to not support the overt hater if the hater was intertwining his hate with his or her advocacy for liberty.
Now, revealing a bit here, the first certifiable “gun nut” I ever met — waving around his pistols in front of little children and so forth —was also an overt hater, using the N word and various other screeds against our brothers. I’d say he didn’t have a “duty” to tote, more like he had a duty to check himself into an institution, perhaps for a serious regimen of psychotropic pharmaceuticals.
That doesn’t work for me. IF someone chooses to be a hater and call themselves L, I’d urge him or her to keep their hatred secret.
So you would judge their beliefs? Perhaps not associate with them and urge others not to associate with them? Call them out on why you believe they are wrong?
You’re purposely blowing the word duty out of proportion. We already made it clear to you that the use of the word in this case was not what you’re pretending it was.
For the record, I don’t generally “tote”.
PF: Libertarians can be as judgemental as they want, if they don’t initiate force or advocate initiating force to enforce their judgement.
me:Yes, I see your point. Back in the day, we Rothbardians would often say it’s OK to be a racist L. And, using deontological tools, I see that. Hate is not necessarily acted on, so if it isn’t, a “good” L can be a hater, in this case, condemners of others because of their skin color.
That doesn’t work for me. IF someone chooses to be a hater and call themselves L, I’d urge him or her to keep their hatred secret.
Condemning those who don’t buy this notion that we all have a duty to tote seems less harmful than the drinkers of haterade, but that’s just a matter of apparent degree.
BTW, when I use the term “judgmental,” I mean “condemnatory.” Obviously it’s nearly impossible to have no judgments/preferences.
Michael Jackson ain’t no philosopher, he was a dancer or something. But, I got a little filosofikil number for cop loving judges here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TiMtDhiJ2o
Libertarians can be as judgemental as they want, if they don’t initiate force or advocate initiating force to enforce their judgement.
Some libertarians personally condemn them, but don’t believe government is the way to solve the problem.
Omnipotent?
That would seem to me to be an issue of freedom of association or non-association.
That sounds judgemental to me 🙂
Yes, but one barrel full of rotten apples…
TB, you remind me of the great philosopher, Michael Jackson, who said:
“One bad apple don’t spoil the whole bunch, girl.”
I wonder how many poor schmucks had to go to jail because the good libertarian judge accepted the lies of “good” cops as truth and found innocent defendants guilty.
I also wonder why all these brave good cops out there are so quick to look away and keep silent when they know that their co-workers are breaking laws or engaging in brutal acts against the citizens they are supposed to be serving.
Cops are nothing more than mercenaries authorized to use violence to enforce the wishes of their masters, the politicians.
Maybe Judge Gray should take a look at the Police Misconduct Reporting Project website for daily reports of atrocious police acts, or Police State USA, or Radley Balko’s blog at HuffPo, or Will Grigg’s website, or John Whitehead’s columns at the Rutherford Institute’s website, or any of the other websites devoted to our unappreciated police state.
Maybe Gray knows all this but also knows, like Wayne Root, that the “normal” people he writes for don’t want to hear about this shit, or maybe Gray has his faux libertarian head so far up the rectal cavity that many of his heroes would like to peer into, that he just can’t see what is going on.
If a “functional libertarian” wrote this tripe:
“So please join me, whenever you have the chance, in expressing your appreciation to the police that you encounter in your daily life. In almost every case, your appreciation will be richly deserved.”
then I’m glad to be a disfunctional anarcho-libertarian that makes da Judge and his ilk cringe in disgust, and I’m proud to say I didn’t waste my time, money or energy involving myself in his worthless LP campaign to turn fascists into functional libertarians.
What’s next from the Judge? A request to lick the jackboots of the thugs as you’re being pepper-sprayed? Maybe we should all thank politicians for their service, too. And don’t forget the jailers and tax collectors – they have tough jobs and aren’t appreciated very much either. What about the poor drone pilots who suffer emotional distress after their brave efforts to keep us all free?
I think I’ll go puke now.
My reply: I don’t CARE what you do or do not possess…
your problem with the word “duty” is a personal one, I don’t care about that either.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
MC have have “gotten it” for you and him, PF, but I see nothing approaching universality from a “moral” perspective.
L-ism is a non-judgmental political philosophy. We Ls say things like “anything peaceful” or “Ls believe that people should be able to do what they wish so long as they don’t hurt others.”
Just as we Ls think people have the right to self-medicate or use the services of sex workers, we take a neutral stance on those peaceful behaviors. NOT bearing arms is also peaceful, and is NOT a duty in any meaningful sense.
You and MC might like any of those behaviors, and you might RECOMMEND your interests to others, but to call it a “duty” seems to careen toward judgmental, even omnipotent!
I, for ex., have never used the services of a sex worker. For a variety of reasons, I can’t say I’d recommend it for others, either. However, if someone used those services, I’d like to think I’d maintain my neutral stance on that transaction.
Similarly, if you and Matt like to tote, that’s on you. Surely you don’t want to tell me that I am some sort of pariah if I choose to NOT tote. Neutrality and non-judgment seem to me to be the implication of the political L.
Now, if SS claims I DO have a duty to tote, all I can say is: I respectfully disagree. If I’m in an especially assertive mood, I might add: “It’s none of your DAMN business what I choose to possess.”
A free society has many such moral duties, with the only punishment for shirking them being various degrees of social ostracism and/or criticism. A tyranny tries to replace all such voluntary duties with legal ones.
If everything is either mandatory or forbidden (or at times both), we are really in trouble. And while we aren’t there yet, it seems we are headed that way.
Matt, you got it. The Libertarian philosophy is all about voluntary action. When I say “duty to preserve a free state” I feel that it is difficult to misconstrue what I am saying. How can the state be free if people are being forced to secure it?
I cited no exceptions, because I believed my original statement to have exceptions already built in. i.e. any who wish to NOT take up the duty.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the line “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men were created equal” At the time nobody asked if this meant women, gays, etc… It was realized by all reading his words that all humans were created to have equal rights just for the fact that they are living, breathing, thinking people.
These days we have people talking about how racist Thomas Jefferson was, and he did not include people of color, how sexist Thomas Jefferson was and how he did not include women, etc… I guess all people begin to question what is or is not self evident depending on their views of the man who wrote the words…. I choose to give the words the benefit of the doubt.
Given the above, I would suggest that when talking about what is vague or not, please read the context that the words were written.
I wish to live in a free state. I volunteer to protect the free state, and that means doing what I can to KEEP it free, but it does NOT include forcing anyone to keep it free against their will as that idea is so completely absurd that I did not believe it needed to be stated.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
One can believe that a true L, or a real man, or whatever, must own a gun. That’s not an unlibertarian thought. If he goes a step further and says, the law should require people to own guns, now its unlibertarian. But, I didn’t get the feeling that SS was even coming remotely close to that point. I think he was basically saying that those of us who have the ability to protect ourselves and our neighbors should do so, and those of us who don’t have that ability should obtain it if we can. He used the word duty because it took the two sentences I just wrote and condensed them into one word.
pf, thanks. Not a legal duty, but a general moral obligation for most people. That’s a pretty porous, vague def., but sometimes that’s the best that can be offered.
If I’m hearing SS’s opinion, he’s saying we should all train and tote so we can all be in the militia. He cites no exceptions, but PF does.
I take it that neither SS or PF believes that there would be no penalties against a person who refused to train and tote, yes? That’s clearly my take on PF’s post.
It amuses me when some Ls claim that one MUST tote to be an L or to be a man or somesuch. That always feels unL to me, both doctrinally and certainly attitudinally.
I don’t think it should be a legal duty, as in you are a pacifist, or broke, or prone to blackouts or sleepwalking or psychotic breaks or suicidal tedencies, so don’t want to/can’t have a gun for whatever reason = you have to pay a fine or go to jail. Nor do I think anyone should be legally obligated to buy you a gun, or ammo, or training, if you can’t afford them yourself. However, it can still be considered a general moral obligation for most people.
RC, I re-read my post, I believe I was pretty clear regarding my meaning when I used the word “duty” I am sorry if you did not understand it, but I don’t know how to make it more clear than what I just wrote.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Moral duty is not necessarily an unlibertarian concept.
ss: Second Amendment is as much a statement about DUTY as it is about freedom.
me: I’d not realized that Ls did the “duty” concept. Please elaborate what you mean by “duty” in general.
To be honest Judge Gray burned me pretty bad with the first article and this one has done nothing to fix that. The fact of the matter is that he is using very general language to voice very general criticisms of the police. Both articles make him seem out of touch.
I was doing some research online about the police violating people’s rights and being corrupt and I stumbled upon a very interesting article written by Roger Roots, an LP member who posts comments on this site from time to time. It is a long article, but it is well worth reading.
Are Cops Constitutional?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
Yes, a well armed community, and getting rid of laws against victimless crimes, would eliminate most truly criminal (rights violating or force initiating) behavior. Far more effectively than the police, or are pretty useless at investigating or solving real crimes (which they often commit themselves) …mostly they just exist to shake people down and get off on power trips.
With respect to his judgeship, I come down on the side of the privatization angle. Currently, we have ample evidence regarding what happens when people ask someone to “represent” them in government. These “representatives” create laws and regulations permitting them to act in morally indefensible ways (such as padding their investment portfolios based on their votes in the CONgress) While these same actions are illegal for regular citizens perform, (insider trading,) Members of congress are legally permitted to trade on insider tips all the while being able to say that some of these insider tips are not bribes.
Police, in many cases, operate in a similar manner. Some would call it “selective enforcement of the law” I would call it corruption.
The LIBERTARIAN solution is to privatize all of this. If government were to exist, it should have to compete with private business, and not be subsidized through the use of taxes (which no legitimate business would be allowed to collect)
I would remind Judge Gray that the Second Amendment is as much a statement about DUTY as it is about freedom. In Switzerland, the Militia is the name given to the people, because most of the people are trained to look for suspicious activities, most people have methods of self defense including, but not limited to firearms.
I have stated before that the police, as a force was ineffective during the Boston Bombing, and Martial Law is never a good response.
My thoughts on the matter is to have as many volunteers as possible to go and train to defend themselves and their neighbors.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the people should be well trained in methods to defend themselves, their freedom, their homes, their families, their neighbors….
What we have is a mercenary force….
While some, on this force, are good people, they work to protect their neighbors, their communities, and their homes/families, it is painfully obvious that far too many have been corrupted by the power, the people, have given.
To all who might question…. I may not be positive about what specific mechanics will facilitate a safer homeland, the evidence states, CLEARLY, that our current system is terrible, and something new needs to be tried.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
I guess I don’t know what I expected as a response from Judge Gray. I imagine that during those years he served as a judge, he did his best to portray fairness and a look of impartiality. He may be thinking “those shits at IPR don’t really think I’m gonna agree that cops are murderers and thugs”, or he might be thinking “those fine youngsters at IPR don’t know the half of it”, but he’s keeping it to himself. It was interesting to have this little back-and-forth, though.
“Matt Cholko November 17, 2013 at 8:21 pm
I think this was pretty well addressed in the comments on the Judge’s column – As a judge, Gray saw police on their best behavior. But, the average person is not a judge. We often deal with police when they’re arresting or harassing us or our friends and loved ones. Consequently, we have very different opinions of police.”
Another important thing that needs to be pointed out is that the majority of civil rights abuses committed by the police never get reported, and out of the few that do get reported, they never make it far enough to the point where a judge is even going to hear about it.
“Jill Pyeatt Post authorNovember 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm
`I don’t think good cops are in the majority,”
I wonder if there even is really such a thing as a good cop. I’m not saying that they are all necessarily like some of the horror stories about cops that we’ve heard and that some of us have experienced, but I wonder if any of them really come close to any libertarian definition of a good cop. It may be that they are all bad, but there are just different degrees of bad, as in some are worse than others, but none of them are truly good.
Paulie said: “That is a fact. How many are actually taking part in the abuses and corruption personally, no one actually knows, since no one knows every cop out there and everything they do.”
Yes, nobody knows what every cop in the country does every day, but I think that the problems with the police are far worse than James Gray realizes.
I know that those willing to break the blue wall of silence are rare and suffer severe consequences when they do. That is a fact. How many are actually taking part in the abuses and corruption personally, no one actually knows, since no one knows every cop out there and everything they do.
`I don’t think good cops are in the majority, or things wouldn’t be this bad. Somewhere along the line, they need to clean their own profession of those giving them a bad name. I know there’s some unspoken code of honor not to rat on your co-worker, but people are dying here, and that should trump any good-old-boys network.
I’m not sure how anyone can know whether good cops are the majority.
I think this was pretty well addressed in the comments on the Judge’s column – As a judge, Gray saw police on their best behavior. But, the average person is not a judge. We often deal with police when they’re arresting or harassing us or our friends and loved ones. Consequently, we have very different opinions of police.
Ah yes, Eric, I remember those days fondly– 😉
I remember when W.A.R would engage with the IPR readership, pure magic.