The dusty state statute only asks ordinary citizens to gather enough signatures, before they call a grand jury to investigate an alleged crime. A 15-member grand jury is now investigating Dr. George Tiller, thanks to the prosecutor-not-needed mechanism.
Active citizens have begun to use the statute, long ignored, to investigate abortion clinics, as well as stores selling explicit videos and magazines. Leaving polarizing issues like abortion aside, I could imagine this law invigorating citizens to get involved in their community and set an agenda that may differ from the prosecutors. Of course, civically active individuals don't always accurately represent the community as a whole.
Should communities reserve this sort of people's justice for only the most necessary cases, like government corruption and abuse of power? What sort of reaction would citizens have if politicians tried to repeal the statute?
My sister-in-law is an escort/stripper, and she lives nearby. We see her three times a week or more, and I love her dearly. But do you think it's judgmental or prudish that I don't want my daughters to ever find out about prostitution in the family? She knows that I know what she does, but we've never openly discussed her occupation. My husband thinks it's just a matter of being young and we'll all be able to joke about it later, but she's 35! With a history of sexual abuse, I think she needs more time on a therapist's couch and less time in bed with married men. So, am I just making something out of nothing?
I think most of us have a celebrity pass — you know, that one person you're allowed to sleep with and have it not count as cheating. Though it's fun to joke about stuff like that since the opportunity will most likely never present itself, if it did, do you think you'd really go through with it? Cheating is cheating in my book, and as painful as it would be to turn down Ben Affleck, I honestly would if I was in a committed relationship. So no matter what kind of a deal you and your significant other hypothetically agreed on, we all know that a myriad of issues would follow. Tell me, if you had the opportunity to sleep with your celebrity pass while in a relationship, would you really go through with it?
Not wanting to miss a historical moment, I went down bright and early to San Francisco's City Hall to check out all the wedding festivities. Today is the first full day of same-sex marriages, following the California Supreme Court ruling that legalized the nuptials. A romantic and emotional atmosphere surrounded the happy newlyweds. While I was there, snapping these photos of the enthusiastic participants, I noticed nothing but support for these unions between same-sex couples. Take a peek at this special day. Do you think we'll see more days like this throughout the country?
In an attempt at romance, your date takes you out to his favorite, intimate restaurant. You’re flattered by the gesture, but things quickly deteriorate when another couple comes in about 15 minutes later. As it turns out, it’s your date’s ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend.
She gives an awkward nod, and it only takes you a few seconds to realize that this was probably the place they came together. He tries to stay casual, but his eyes are darting to their table every two minutes, so how do you handle this?
Organic or local? Fuel-efficient hybrid or used car? Will your plastic water bottle kill you? And, FYI, biofuel, which sounded so smart a few years back, could destroy Asian rain forests.
Sigh. Americans have been inundated with information since environmentalism went mainstream with An Inconvenient Truth and "green" became buzzword. It's possible that weariness is what's polluting our air and a backlash is a brewing.
The New York Times calls it green noise. Too much information on constant rotation. Some of it is contradictory. Most of it is vexing. And it's all overwhelming.
But this influx of pro-environmental info isn't just overwhelming people, it could be annoying them. What makes it so counter-productively obnoxious? To find out four ways, read more
Thanks to an 1887 law, pro-life Kansans have circumvented their prosecutors and called a grand jury to investigate a doctor they accuse of providing late-term abortions for three decades. 
Fabi
Tibi
Lom Bok