An indictment of the Justice Department and a lot of universities

using the language to play with the law and peoples' lives for what amounts to personal reasons.
In New England, "harassment" has included, within recent times, jokes and ways of telling stories, "experienced by others as harassing" (Bowdoin College); "verbal behavior" that produces "feelings of impotence," "anger," or "disenfranchisement," whether "intentional or unintentional" (Brown University); speech that causes loss of "self-esteem [or] a vague sense of danger" (Colby College); or even "inappropriately directed laughter," "inconsiderate jokes," and "stereotyping" (University of Connecticut). The student code of the University of Vermont demands that its students not only not offend each other, but that they appreciate each other: "Each of us must assume responsibility for becoming educated about racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia/heterosexism, and other forms of oppression so that we may respond to other community members in an understanding and appreciative manner."
(people are paying HOW MUCH a year to put up with this crap?)

Central to this potential movement should be its nonpartisan aims. The abuses described in Three Felonies a Day have been steadily worsening under every administration, Democrat and Republican, since the 1980s. (The current Justice Department shows little hope of reversing course.) While the statute books have expanded, and the statutory language remains hopelessly malleable, every aspect of civil society---doctors, artists, activists, and businessmen, to name a few---has been unfairly targeted. Even the feds' pursuit of supposedly corrupt politicians, almost always met with applause from the press corps and the political opposition, cuts across ideological bounds.
Which once again brings us back to "Are there enough lampposts and trees in DC for the politicians and bureaucrats both?"