I so rarely disagree with Digby, but here I must:

So Jill Biden is pompous for calling herself Dr. I don’t know exactly why anyone even finds that noteworthy --- it’s not exactly unprecedented in Washington for people to use their titles and it’s not like she didn’t earn it.

Consider these two paragons:

We couldn’t help but notice that Terwilliger is referring to his client as “Judge,” a relatively common practice we’ve noted before. Gonzales was once a judge, of course — a Texas Supreme Court justice, and while attorney general he preferred to be called “Judge” rather than “General,” which is what Ashcroft liked to be called.

Now that’s pompous. (Ashcroft demanding to be called “General” is especially rich considering his record during Vietnam.)

In Southern states, “General” has evolved into the “correct” title, at least in circumstances where the heads of other Cabinet departments would be called “Secretary.” It’s etymologically incorrect, because “General” is an adjective modifying “Attorney.” That’s why the plural is attorneys general, similar to courts martial or professors emeritus.

Yet in the South, for reasons escaping all of us, the form of address that would be “Secretary Clinton” migrates to “General Holder” for the Department of Justice. I think Brain Bank is correct when it says that the Attorney General should also be addressed as “Secretary Holder,” but I don’t think it’s done that way in either Missouri (Ashcroft’s home state) or Texas (Gonzo’s).

However, more than two years ago, the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog argued that calling former judges “Judge” was pompous. It probably isn’t for at least a period of time, but when you’ve moved on to higher office and you’re asking people to still call you “Judge?” Or ten years after you left the bench? That’s a bit much.

So for Gonzales, I can believe it’s pompous. For Ashcroft, while I can easily believe his overblown pomposity, I’d bet a nickel that he just believes that’s how the Attorney General is supposed to be addressed.

It’s not like there aren’t so many better ways to criticize the man, anyway…

Just after I finish working on an item about Adobe Flash, I need some mental refreshment, so I pay a visit to the Web site of one of my favorite composers.

On every machine I have, on every browser, it won't let me see a single damned thing because it says I don't have Adobe Flash Player installed.

I do. The current version. On all systems. Plug-ins enabled and everything.

And Adobe wonders why people aren't thrilled at the prospect of the entire Web designed this way.