An "activist" is a vigorous advocate for a cause.  Famous activists have included Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Lech Walesa, and Leo Tolstoy.

Scott Roeder is not an activist. He is a "murderer," or most accurately, an "assassin".  Please amend your headlines accordingly.

I recognize that the appearance of objectivity (as opposed to actual objectivity) is important to journalists, but please, show a little perspective.

Next week, we'll discuss the word "militant".

Proponents of open carry laws in California are calling for boycotts of Peet's Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen chains today, as both chains announced they will prohibit the possession of firearms in their stores. This comes after an open carry group met at a Peet's and met with mixed reactions. The next meeting was going to be at a California Pizza Kitchen, but the new policy rules that out.

Peet's policy is: "While Peet's Coffee & Tea respects and values all individuals' rights under local, state and federal laws, our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores or on our outdoor seating premises unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers. Like most other private businesses, particularly retail establishments, we believe this policy is in the best interests of all of our customers, regardless of their personal beliefs. In no way does this policy conflict with or discriminate under the law, and it does not take a position on the law." And CPK's: "CPK does not allow guests other than uniformed officers to display firearms in our restaurants. CPK is a family oriented restaurant and the comfort and well being of our guests is a top priority. We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents."

Both of these policys are 100% legal and make perfect sense. And yet, the open carry folks are angry (as is their natural state, it seems..) They are perfectly within their rights to call for a boycott, and (as customers of both those chains) I hope they do. I enjoyed this sign they are running.

P.S. – Guess where else asserts it's rights to say you can't bring a gun onto the premises? NRA headquarters. I think I'll see about organizing a boycott.

I got a lovely email from RNC Chairman Michael Steele telling me all about how he feels about the State of the Union. He includes this tough but fair analysis of one year of Obama:

"We have seen a year of ethically challenged appointees, haphazard attempts at keeping America safe from terror, failed "stimulus" plans, budget busting deficits, back room deals with special interests, and Obama's blatant attempt to continue binge spending with unprecedented debt."

So, sort of like the 8 years before it then. The more things change…

By the way, the fact that Obama & Shrub are easily grouped together should not make anyone feel good.

Did you think that the good folks of the Menifee Union School District in California were the only censorious twits annoying us this week? Oh, ye of little faith.

Today it's Culpeper, Virginia. School authorities there pulled the full version of the Diary of Anne Frank, apparently with the intent to replace it with the bowdlerized version that Otto Frank originally published in 1947. The school had been using the definitive, complete version released upon the fiftieth anniversary of Frank's death in a concentration camp.

So — why did they pull it? Were there grim stories of Nazi atrocities? Vivid descriptions of heaps of dead spied out of the garret window? Horrific but apt speculations about the millions of Jews who were not hidden?

Nope. Anne mentioned her Bad Bad Place in a context other than identifying it as a font of pure evil, and a parent was offended.

Citing a parent’s concern over the sexual nature of the vagina passage in the definitive edition, Allen said school officials immediately chose to pull this version and use an alternative copy.

“What we have asked is that this particular edition will not be taught,” Allen said from his office Wednesday morning. “I don’t want to make a big deal out of this. So we listened to the parent and we pulled it.”

Apparently, Anne’s father, Otto Frank, the sole survivor of the “Secret Annex,” felt the need to censor his daughter’s most intimate thoughts as well, eliminating about 30 percent of the original diary published in 1947.

He omitted parts where Anne criticized her mother and other Jews living in the confined quarters as well as some sexually suggestive references.

May I say entirely inappropriately JESUS CHRIST.

The school district is not backing down. Quoth the ironically named Bobbi Johnson:

“The essence of the story, the struggle of a young girl faced with horrible atrocities, is not lost by editing the few pages that speak to adolescent discovery of intimate feelings,” Johnson wrote in an e-mail to the Star-Exponent Thursday. “While these pages could be the basis of a relevant discussion, they do not reflect the purpose of studying the book at the middle-school level and could foster a discussion in a classroom that many would find inappropriate.”

Of course, most people who read the Diary of Anne Frank recognize that it is precisely the juxtaposition of the raw feelings of an adolescent girl and the horror of the Holocaust that makes it remarkable. If people wanted to learn more about how much Hitler sucked, they could just Tivo the History Channel at random. There are tens of thousands of written accounts of the fate of Jews in World War II. Anne's is gripping precisely because of who she is and how she expresses herself.

Now, bear in mind that it is eighth-graders in Culpeper who are reading this. What kind of language is the school district classifying as "explicit", justifying a retreat to a different version that cuts out 30% of the content? This blogger quotes the Washington Post:

There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can’t imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!

Oh my God. If eighth graders read that, society will be DOOMED.

If there's anyone I can't stand, it's people who wander up to a conversational group talking about a TV show and intone "Oh, I don't even own a television," then recline upon their own insufferable smugness. Look, just go read Recherche du Temps Perdu as translated into Navajo or something, will you? We get it. You're our intellectual superiors. Let us go back to talking about the B-plot on Friday Night Lights.

I agree with the recent cliche that we're in another golden age of television — particularly with the addition of cable as a dominant player, the last decade has seen a flood of high-quality, sophisticated, literate, well-written, and gripping and/or hilarious shows.

But there's no denying that television, to swipe and modify E.B. White's famous comparison, is like humor or frogs — it does not benefit from being picked apart. In fact, nearly everything on television suffers badly from close analysis. A good show is a windswept romance, not a stable long-term relationship. I'm not saying that you can only enjoy TV if you are dumb — though it certainly helps in many cases. I'm simply saying that examining its premises too closely will spoil your enjoyment. That doesn't mean its a uniquely crass or stupidity-inducing form of entertainment. Have you closely analyzed the lyrics to your favorite song recently? No, it simply means that if you're going to watch TV with a skeptic's eye, you're going to wind up disappointed or, possibly, freaked out by the hidden premises.

One of the best places to observe this phenomenon is the blog Overthinking It. Today, they take on Cartoon Network's Star Wars: The Clone Wars, illuminating a level of dramatic irony that borders on the grotesque. My eight-year-old LOVES this show, but I don't think I can watch it again without shuddering now. Enjoy!

Ted Olson is irritated that President Obama criticized SCOTUS' decision in Citizens United v. FEC in the SOTUA last night.

“Other presidents have spoken out and scolded the Court before, usually liberals, like Franklin Roosevelt,” says Olson. “It’s not appropriate. Presidents should respect the justices.” The Citizens United case, he adds, “was not about corporations taking over the political process, but enabling everyone to participate in the political process and protecting free speech.”

I happen to think Mr. Olson was on the right side in Citizens United — a case I'll try to blog about when I'm not quite so under the gun. I also like the policy view he is taking in Perry v. Schwartzenegger, even if I think his legal theory is rather more tenuous under current law than he does.

That said, I have to ask: really, Ted, really? It's liberals who mostly scold the Court? Because I could have sworn that I heard over the last decade that the Supreme Court was making Americans less safe whenever they took the most modest step to place limits on executive power to conduct the Great War on Terror. I can also remember a whole lot of caterwauling over SCOTUS abolishing the death penalty for juveniles, or saying that consensual adult same-sex intercourse can't be criminalized. I could have sworn that most of that criticism didn't come from "liberals", whatever that word means any more.

Of course, as illustrated by a recent example Radley Balko pointed out, political characterizations that require the terms "liberal" or "conservative" to operate can generally be relied upon to be bullshit.

The directors of the New Orleans and Indianapolis Museums of Art have been having a very enjoyable trash talking dialogue back and forth about the losing city offering a piece of art to the winning city. The messages have been routinely enjoyable and will certainly offer better trash talk than either team. A few samples I liked:

Indy: "We're already spackling the wall where the NOMA loan will hang,"

New Orleans: "Max Anderson must not really believe the Colts can beat the Saints in the Super Bowl. Otherwise why would he bet such an insignificant work as the Ingrid Calame painting?"

And my personal fave from New Orleans: "I am amused that Renoir is too sweet for Indianapolis. Does this mean that those Indiana corn farmers have simpler tastes? If so why would Max offer us that gaudy Chalice — just looks like another over-elaborate Victorian tchotchke."

They settled on a bet, with New Orleans offering up a Claude Lorrain painting for loan and Indy meeting that with a JMW Turner painting. I have to admit, this bet might be the funnest thing about the Superbowl this year.

Does this video, widely circulated on the web in September 2008 but for some reason now hard to find, seem creepier than ever?

I don't blame these children, any more than I blame children who sing the praises of Kim Jong-Il. I blame their parents.

Of course, the parents breed.

There's no way I'm going to match the humor in David's post about the Seventh Circuit's ruling upholding a ban on Dungeons & Dragons materials in prison, so I'm not really going to try. I'm only going to point out that the court's ruling in Singer v. Raemisch illustrates two trends, one alarming and one banal. The decision is here, if you want to read it.

First point: American judges remain credulous and compliant in the face of questionable "expert opinion" from law enforcement. Sure, now and then you see some skepticism. Now and then judges look for actual foundation — as when a court recently said "no, officer, actually we don't believe that you can hear the speed of a car. Sorry." But for the most part, judges consume whatever pseudo-science (or, worse, pseudo-social-science) people in uniform feed them. That's how, for instance, I was able to convince a federal judge back in 1996 or so to let me call a DEA agent to testify that there is no such thing as a blind mule — in other words, that drug couriers always by definition know they are carrying drugs, and that he could say so based on his training and experience as a DEA agent. In my defense, I was about 27 and didn't know better.

In this case, the junk science of the correction's "expert" is breathtaking, as is the court's gullibility in accepting it. I could quote you big chunks, but believe me, it's worth reading.

Second point: Nearly forty years after it was created, Dungeons & Dragons still continues to freak people out in hilarious ways. To anyone who has actually played it, the critics' preconceptions about the game and how it is played are simply bizarre alarmist rhetoric. Here the corrections expert seems to think the Dungeon Masters (for the un-geeky among you, that's the storyteller who runs the game and describes the imaginary events to which players react, and who adjudicates the application of dice rolls and convoluted rules to the player's imagined actions) has some sort of steely, cult-like command over the players, akin to a gang leader. My experience as a player and an occasional Dungeon Master (okay, okay, like you didn't know I was a huge geek already) was that players were generally fat, flatulent gits who stole my Doritos, refused to cease quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail during my attempts to depict tense scenes, and argued with me about the rules for hours on end.

We fear what we don't know, and we do not go beyond our fathers' sayings. That's how prison officials can look at people arguing over elves and goblins and see gang initiation rituals.

Ilya Somin gets to the heart of the matter:

The sole evidence the prison officials have submitted on this point [the connection between D&D and gangs] is the affidavit of Captain Muraski, the gang specialist.  Muraski testified that Waupun’s prohibition on role-playing and fantasy games was intended to serve two purposes. The first aim Muraski cited was the maintenance of prison security. He explained that the policy was intended to promote prison security because cooperative games can mimic the organization of gangs and lead to the actual development thereof. Muraski elaborated that during D&D games, one player is denoted the “Dungeon Master.” The Dungeon Master is tasked with giving directions to other players, which Muraski testified mimics the organization of a gang.

Ahem.  Apologies to Sondheim….

Dear NPC Muraski
You gotta understand,
It's just our daily maskey,
No need to bust a gland.
Our DM tokes a stogie,
His house rules are in vogue.
Drizzt Do'Urden! Natcherly we're rogues!

Gee, Captain Muraski, we're very upset;
We haven't tried the 4th edition starter kit yet!
We ain't no gang members,
We're headed true north,
Gather the party, venture forth!

Venture forth!

Venture forth! Venture forth!
Ere we venture forth!
We must gather all, then venture forth!

Dear kindly Judge, your Honor,
The warden ain't a fan.
Despite his high speed broadband,
He won't hook up our lan.
We just use pen and paper,
So whatcha gonna ban?
Creepin' kobolds!  That's a bogus plan!

Captain Muraski, you're nerfed in the brain;
This boy don't lead a gang, he runs a fictive campaign!
His imagination, it oughta be curbed.
He's dramaturgically disturbed!

We're disturbed, we're disturbed,
Roll to save or curb!
But there's still no need to be perturbed!

My cellmate is barbaric,
My friend's a mage arcane.
We'd better bring a cleric,
The new guy is insane.
That lifer is a ranger,
For thieves you won't look hard,
And on death row I hear there's a bard!

Capped Captain Muraski,
You've gotta admit,
You didn't roll your twenty for a critical hit.
You're some expert witness, no wonder you're pimped.
Too bad your theory's fully gimped!

Fully gimped, fully gimped,
They can't say you skimped,
But your testimony's badly gimped!

Gee, Captain Muraski,
No need to be lame,
It's not a mimicked gang,
It's just a role-playing game.
Hey, Captain Muraski,
Would you like a clue?
Gee, Captain Muraski,
Pike you!

Dear Opposing Counsel,

Thank you for your pre-trial settlement offer pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 998.

I had drafted a more elaborate response, but my associate insisted that even after a lengthy search on Westlaw, she could not find controlling authority supporting my proposed demand to you vis-a-vis my taint. Therefore, I will confine myself to stating that your offer is hereby respectfully rejected.

Very truly yours,

etc.

The Lt. Governor of South Carolina (and a strong candidate to be Governor) Andre Bauer had some unfortunate things to say about government assistance for the poor. He brought up a folksy old tale his grandmother told him:

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Lovely. Always good to equate poor people with stray animals. Heaven forbid we give a person an ample food supply. And, on cue, Bauer has gone with the non-apology apology:

"Do I wish I'd used a different metaphor? Of course I do," the 40-year-old said. "I didn't intend to offend anyone."

Of course you didn't Andre, of course you didn't. So, in which flattering way were you going to equate poor people with animals? Oh, by the way, the cherry on top of this story? Lt. Governor Bauer was a recipient of welfare and free lunches when he was a child. Maybe granny hated him? Or at least didn't want him to breed…

Generic incendiary blog post. Very funny.

Many of the comments are as good as the post.  I do not say that merely because I wrote one of them.

(Via Walter Olson).

Contra what I last wrote on these pages, it appears that George Orwell's ghost is restless.  These days, he haunts Menifee California:

A parent complaint that a dictionary in her son’s classroom at Oak Meadows Elementary contained the term and definition for “oral sex” prompted school officials in the Menifee Union School District to pull all copies of the book from its fourth and fifth grade classrooms last week.

Lest defenders of morality question the inclusion of some scurrilous sex book in the fourth grade curriculum, it should be noted that the dictionary in question is Noah Webster's.

[W]hen the parent — who was volunteering in her son’s classroom when she came across the word — complained to the school’s principal about the explicit language, curriculum officials with the district made a decision to temporarily remove the books.

Next, according to school board’s policy, a committee consisting of site and district representatives will be formed to “determine the extent to which the challenged material supports the curriculum, the educational appropriateness of the material, and its suitability for the age level of the student.”

This is what we've come to.  One idiot can have the dictionary removed from schools, by complaining that it includes a dirty word.

On second thought, the ghost to invoke isn't Orwell's.  It's that of his countryman C. S. Lewis:

The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT.

The parent who filed this complaint should be named and ridiculed across the entire internet.  Since I can't do that, I'll have to link to the profile of Menifee Union School District Superintendent Linda Callaway.

Doctor Callaway, you've banned the dictionary.  Is this what you went through the trouble of getting a doctorate in education to do?

H/t: Chris Berez.

So apparently, when a very angry federal judge yells at you that you didn't point out something in your papers, and asks why you didn't, he's not looking for the answer "Because I thought it was self-evident, Your Honor."

But he cut the government's requested sentence in half, anyway, and gave the client all the time he wanted to surrender.

I probably shouldn't have said it. But to paraphrase Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, "Well, they tell you never antagonize a federal judge, but it is, on occasion, hilarious."