Last weekend our nation's top movies were "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" and "My Bloody Valentine 3-D." "American Idol" continues to beat the competition in the television ratings. The bestseller list is choked with books that would be beach reading at a resort for functional illiterates. The nation's most popular art needs to be watered periodically.

Whatever is a cultural snob to do? Who will save people who prize quality, subtlety, artistry in their entertainment?

I know — the government!

Continue Reading »

I watched Obama's oath of office and inaugural address on the TV in the conference room with a dozen of my co-workers, who run the political gamut. There was a diverse collection of snorts (at Rick Warren's frankly odd and creepy intonation of the Obama girls' names, for instance), good-natured snickers (at Obama, who seemed nervous and unlike himself during the oath, and Chief Judge Roberts, who looked poleaxed and seemed to sprint off of the stage), and approving nods (at many of the performances, and at the the delivery — if not, universally, the content — of Obama's speech).

I wanted to call attention to one line:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.

I'm not a non-believer. I'm a Presbyterian — a deacon, in fact. But I was happy and proud to arrive at a time when the President of the United States would make such a clear statement of inclusion in such an important speech. I know, and respect, many atheists and agnostics — among them my father and close friends. I abhor any suggestion that they are less than full and equal participants in American society. That's a suggestion delivered by, for instance, polls suggesting that a majority of Americans say they would not vote for an atheist, and by a large component of modern political rhetoric. For better or worse, with or without scriptural basis, I feel that my relationship with God requires tolerance of the private beliefs of others. And I'm quite certain that in the long term the security of my freedom to worship as I will depends upon vigilant defense of other people's right not to worship. A civic culture that officially denigrates people for lack of faith is a civic culture that will, sooner or later, intrude into the private sphere of belief in other ways.

Arguably the message of inclusion was watered down by the omnipresent invocation of "civic religion" during the proceedings. But that's an argument for another day.

Jayne: (wearing ugly homemade hat) "How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don'tchya think?"

Kaylee: "I think it's the sweetest hat ever."

Book: "Makes a statement."

Jayne: "Yeah, yeah!"

Wash: "A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything."

Jayne: "Damn straight."

What better way to celebrate the inauguration than to posterize yourself, Obama style?

Happy Inauguration Day!

Normally I am not particularly perturbed when evildoers, in the course of preparing to do evil, do themselves in. Sic transit Theodore Gold, Diana Oughton, and Terry Robbins.

However, I have to agree with Not a Potted Plant: when forty al-Qaida terrorists drop dead of bubonic plague, and there are indications that this was not a fortuitous coincidence but a result of al-Qaida trying to weaponize the deadly disease, the appropriate reaction is not a Nelsonish HA-ha of bemusement, but something between grave concern and high anxiety.

Today, the United States inaugurated Barack Obama as our 44th President.  Today is historic for several reasons.  First, President Obama is only the second President whose first name begins with "B".  He is the first whose last name begins with "O".  Finally, going against the historical trend, President Obama refuses to wear prominent whiskers.

Indeed, a most significant day.

If his interns keep it up, he'll have a technorati authority higher than Sullivan, Reynolds, or Moulitsas by February.

I consider Geoffrey Fieger, best known to the public as Dr. Jack Kevorkian's lawyer, a showboat and a gadfly, but I like him nonetheless.  Fieger challenges "the Man" at every opportunity, and seems to be genuine in his advocacy of ordered liberty, with the emphasis on liberty.  But I disagree with him about a couple of things.

First, I disagree with Geoffrey Fieger that it is constitutionally protected speech for an attorney to say, "I declare war upon you," in response to a judge's ruling against the attorney's client.  Specifically, Fieger feels that Michigan's requirement that attorneys treat everyone involved in the legal process "with courtesy and respect" violates the First Amendment.  Admission to the Bar is a privilege, not a right, and it requires attorneys to give up a few rights in return, including profanity in the courtroom, degrading witnesses, fellow attorneys and judges, and lying to adverse parties in litigation.  Telling a judge, "I declare war upon you," is improper, and should result in professional discipline.  And anyway, isn't it easier to say, "With all due respect your honor, a state of hostility exists between us, due to your erroneous and ill-founded rulings"?

Second, I disagree with Fieger that Martin Luther King is the greatest American of all time.  If pure genius and achievement is the measure, it's probably Thomas Edison.  If achievement against adversity is the measure, Washington and Lincoln were better men.  If eloquence (with no small amount of adversity, such as fleeing the tories as they burn down one's house) is the measure, Jefferson is the better man, and so for that matter is Lincoln.  But I'm happy to concede that King is one of the five greatest Americans.

1. If you're like me, you bought the addictive sleeper puzzle/rpg-lite game Puzzle Quest across several platforms. There's a sequel in the works, and courtesy of the awesome gaming blog Rock, Paper Shotgun, there's now a very brief browser demo.

2. Normal people think about normal things. Geeks think about geek things. For instance — what would be the most useless superpower to have? No, I mean even worse than Aquaman. But if a geek can imagine in, some other geek already has a web site about it. So courtesy of Geektastic, I give you the Superuseless Superpowers blog. "13th Bullet Bulletproof" is my current favorite.

It's all over the the geekier side of the internet, but that's OK.  This side of the internet is geekier than most.  I give you the worst placement of a television ad in history, courtesy of the season premiere of Battlestar Galactica.

A couple of notes: This video may contain spoilers for the show.  This video may contain violence which is graphic by broadcast television standards.  Finally, this video is the funniest thing I've seen in a month of sundays.

In a mediation all day in Ventura, so light blogging.

Assud, the giant Jew eating rabbit featured on Hamas children's television, has reportedly achieved martyrdom.  Seventy-two carrots for Assud, courtesy of the Israeli Defense Forces.

The story would probably be funnier if it were actually true.  Unfortunately IDF measures to protect civilians benefit appear to benefit rabbits as well.  For previous coverage of the world's most horrifying children's tv character, see here and here.

H/t: Joel Rosenberg, who sometimes blogs at Windypundit, via Twitter.

If you're going to be be near a department store tomorrow, you might as well pick up some free cosmetics loot for that special someone.  "Honey, I got you a bottle of J'Adore Eau de Parfum. That's your scent right?"

I wonder how they'll stop "class members" from walking to the car, then picking up another bottle, and another, and another.  Perhaps?

This notice is provided as sign of affection for our readers.  Any suggestion of poor appearance or body odor on the part of Popehat readers  is disclaimed.

If I'd gone the geek route at my wedding, I'd have asked the officiant to wear a Vader costume, but that's just me.

Congratulations to the happy couple.

A short update on the thuggish attempt by District of Columbia police to threaten antiabortion protesters with criminal prosecution for attempting to hold a demonstration on Pennsylvania Avenue four days after the upcoming inauguration, previously covered here.  In addition, the police made a curious threat to charge anyone using chalk to draw on sidewalks with defacement of public property (as though a chalk drawing is permanent.

A federal judge has granted the activists a preliminary injunction against the police, which of course may be withdrawn or appealed, but it does appear more likely that these demonstrators will be allowed to speak, and draw, their piece in our nation's capital.  No doubt many of them would, in other contexts, decry this as "judicial activism," and no doubt a few on the censorious fringes of the left are doing the same.  Of course, if enforcing the Bill of Rights against government overreach is judicial activism, I'm all in favor of it.

Religion Clause has more details.