American Geography 101: My top fives

MY TOP FIVES

Favorite drives

1.) Road: Interstate 40 East. Cities and towns: Between Asheville, North Carolina and Newport, Tennessee.

As beautiful as Asheville is, your remaining time on I-40 after getting ripped off at the Biltmore Estate is worth the inflated price of gas. This stretch takes you through the great Smoky Mountains in extreme western North Carolina. Depending on how fast you drive, this 65-mile trek should take no more than an hour. The best time to take this trip, without a doubt, is in fall.

2.) Road: US 101 North. Cities and towns: Ventura, Santa Barbara, Montecito.

As if her millions weren't good enough, this is the drive Oprah Winfrey (a Montecito resident) takes into the outskirts of Los Angeles county. This trek up 101 rides along the Pacific shoreline from Ventura to Santa Barbara, a stretch that is home to some of the Golden State's largest waves. To your right you cannot miss the picturesque Santa Ynez mountains, one of the few east-west ranges in the United States. This is a great drive at any time of the year.

3.) Road: Encinal Canyon Road north off PCH to Mulholland Drive. Cities and towns: Malibu and Westlake Village, California.

This half-hour drive is not for the faint of heart. It is chock-full of twists, turns and shear rock formations. Those of us who like to enjoy the view of the Santa Monica Mountains should be weary of expensive sports cars who like to turn this stretch of road into a Rally track. This is a great trip year-round, though it could get dicey during fire season.

4.) Road: Highway 1A off US 1. Cities and towns: York Corner, York, York Harbor and York Beach, Maine. This two lane road takes you several miles along the shore of the Atlantic Ocean through several small vacation settlements in southern Maine. Most any drive in Coastal Maine would suffice, however. If you are in town, stop in to the Lobster Cove restaurant, situated about 50 feet from the Atlantic shoreline. They serve a mean clam chowder and are famous for their bisque. I had a burger, of course. The Cove is more house than restaurant, with two stories of dining and two roaring fireplaces.

5.) Road: SC-46 to SC-170 to US-17. Cities and towns: Bluffton, South Carolina and Savannah, GA.

This 26-mile drive through the lowland pines of South Carolina culminates in the rise of the Talmadage Memorial Bridge in Savannah. The beautiful cable-stayed bridge over the Savannah river dumps you off into the city center, just blocks from the famous historic district.

Honorable mention: I-90 through Hidden Valley, upstate New York; US-31 between Charlevoix and Petsokey, Michigan; The Flint Hills in Southeastern Kansas; Ocean drive, Miami Beach, Florida; West Side Highway, New York City; PJ McArdie Roadway, Mt. Washington (Pittsburgh, PA); North Long Beach Blvd., Seaside Heights, NJ; Lakeshore drive, Chicago, Illinois; The King's Highway (Eastbound 401) between Missasauga and Toronto, Ontario (18 lanes of fun);

Favorite cities

1.) Savannah, Georgia
2.) Charleston, South Carolina
3.) Miami, Florida
4.) New York, New York
5.) Toronto, Ontario

Favorite states

1.) South Carolina
2.) Michigan
3.) California
4.) Maine
5.) Alabama

Favorite climate zones

1.) Mediterranean
2.) Humid Subtropical
3.) Continental Steppe
4.) Humid Continental
5.) Highland

Favorite regions

1.) Old South (Carolinas and Georgia)
2.) Southland (Southern California)
3.) Up North (Michigan)
4.) New England (Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine)
5.) The Bible Belt (deep south portion)

Favorite expressways

1.) US 101 (Southern California)
2.) US 40 (Western North Carolina)
3.) Highway 401 (Toronto, Ontario)
4.) I-35 (Southern Kansas)
5.) I-90 (Upstate New York)

Favorite mass transit systems

1.) New York City (Subway)
2.) Toronto (The Rocket and electric trolleys)
3.) Boston (The Red Line and electric trolleys)
4.) Washington D.C. (The Metro)
5.) Chicago (The EL)

Skylines

1.) Pittsburgh, PA
2.) New York, NY
3.) Chicago, IL
4.) Cincinnati, OH
5.) Toronto, ON

Favorite state capitol buildings

1.) Des Moines, IA
2.) Albany, NY
3.) Boston, MA
4.) Charleston, WV
5.) Columbus, OH

Traffic nightmares

1.) Los Angeles, CA
2.) Chicago, IL
3.) New York, NY
4.) Atlanta, GA
5.) Detroit, MI

Cities on the rise

1.) Nashville, TN
2.) Charlotte, NC
3.) Birmingham, AL
4.) Atlanta, GA
5.) Oklahoma City, OK

Cities on the decline

1.) Detroit, MI
2.) Saint Louis, MO
3.) Memphis, TN
4.) Pittsburgh, PA
5.) New Orleans, LA

Best small cities

1.) Augusta, GA
2.) Mt. Pleasant, SC
3.) Santa Barbara, CA
4.) Petoskey, MI
5.) Portland, ME

Best major airports

1.) Charlotte Douglas (CLT)
2.) Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW)
3.) Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL)
4.) Miami International (MIA)
5.) Sky Harbor (PHX)

Restaurants on the road

1.) Chick-fil-a
2.) Chick-fil-a
3.) Chick-fil-a
4.) Chick-fil-a
5.) Chick-fil-a

My week in the jury box

For the past week, I've had the good fortune of serving my city, my county, my state, my country and my fellow man.

Or, at least that is what I was told.

I did my civic duty, serving as a juror and ruling on a civil case brought before Judge Thomas Yuille.

I arrived last Tuesday morning at the Genesee County Courthouse, bright and early, and nearly slept through a propaganda video that basically equated jury duty to taking fire in a foxhole at Guadalcanal.

Not long after the sappy video was over, I was taken with about 50 others into the courtroom for voir dire. This process of selecting a jury is interesting, in that both parties have opportunities to dismiss prospective jurors without cause--a veto we call premptory challenge.

The jury box was one sucker short of being full when I heard my name called by the clerk of the court.

I approached the podium knowing that I would be a shoe-in for dismissal. As it turned out, it was the perfect storm that morning.

In this case the plaintiff, one Jamie Prevo, was sueing his former employer, Merchants and Medical Credit Corporation, for unlawful termination.

I alerted counsel to the fact that I had been a debtor of MMCC when I was only two years out of high school, and that my dealings with them were less than perfect.

The plaintiff's counsel, obviously, liked me because it was, undoubtedly, their believe that as a debtor I might be sympathetic to Mr. Prevo. On the other hand, the defense wanted me on that jury because they knew I was educated. As an educated person, I wouldn't be as prone to being duped by a shrewd attorney at $300 per hour.

And so, neither had an objection to my presence and before long I was listening to opening statements with my seven new friends.

The particulars

Mr. Prevo was claiming two things:

1.) That the defendant (MMCC) fired him after learning that he was going to report the company for using illegal software on numerous computers.

2.) That the defendant (MMCC) discriminated against him as a result of his weight.

I did my best to keep an open mind, but the case seemed contrived from the very start.

First, Mr. Prevo was MMCC's top computer technician and loaded the illegal software himself. Mr. Prevo, however, opted to go with the "Nuremberg" defense, claiming that he was forced to do it and that he feared losing his job if he didn't.

It was a ridiculous defense, however, because had Mr. Prevo refused and been fired for it, he would have an open-and-shut case of unlawful termination.

Since the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove his case, I waited for a smoking gun...and waited...and waited.

The claim of weight discrimination was feckless, based only on hearsay. Further, Mr. Prevo was actually 100+ pounds heavier when he was first hired by MMCC.

As for the claim of being unlawfully discharged while under the protection of the Whistleblower's Act, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was dismissed on account of the threat to turn the company in.

It became clear, by virtue of numerous testimonies of co-workers, that Mr. Prevo was actually fired for making a threat to "wipe the computers clean".

After an embarrassing closing argument by the plaintiff's counsel, it was obvious to me what our decision would be.

In spite of the plaintiff's request of $130,000 in damages, my jury awarded him nothing.

It took some work, but I convinced my fellow jurors that Mr. Prevo was, indeed, under the protection of the Whistleblower's Act when he threatened to turn his employer into authorities and that he was subsequently terminated. However, since there was no causal connection between the protected act and the termination, he was not entitled to damages under the act.

As with any jury rendering a verdict against the plaintiff, no one looked in his direction when we entered the courtroom.

After being discharged by Judge Yuille, we went back to the jury room and were allowed to ask questions of the judge. He did not hesitate to tell us that he would have ruled in the same manner. Further, he informed us that Mr. Prevo had previously been arrested for hacking into computers--information that was suppressed during the trial.

He had the wrong jury

It's now all too obvious to me how we get many of the insane decisions in our court systems. To be a juror, you really need only to be an 18-year-old citizen in somewhat good standing.

There are a lot of uneducated people out there, and if you happen to get eight of them together in a room, anything can happen.

It would have been easy to get side-tracked with all the irrelevant hardship testimony about Mr. Prevo's personal life. That being said, I took pains during deliberations to remind my fellow jurors to only consider what the plaintiff proved against what the law says.

Mr. Prevo had preexisting emotional distress that had no direct correlation to his termination from employment at MMCC.

Mr. Prevo just had the wrong jury. It is scary to think that we could have forced MMCC to pay any amount of money we saw fit.

And the real tragedy of frivolous lawsuits like this one is that in this country, unlike many others, the loser does not have to pay the winner's court costs. There should be a stiff penalty for bringing anyone to court on dubious grounds.

A lighter moment

I felt a little guilty, at least at first, for questioning the competence of one of my fellow jurors. Juror #6 was an older women with hearing and vision problems in addition to obvious mental issues.

I didn't know exactly what to say about her to the rest of the jury, but luckily she did the hard work for me.

During our first lunch as a jury, she sat at my table at the Masonic Temple in downtown Flint. Like any avid reader, I had a book with me just in case I had some down time. The book, sitting on the table, drew her interest right away.

"Is that book about the case?" she asked.

After giving her the "you can't be serious" look, I calmly answered, "nope" and went about eating my lunch.

I've been known to churn out information in print fairly quickly, but publishing a book about a court case only two hours old would have been a challenge.

(The book, just for the record, was Rammer Jammer, Yellow Hammer.)

Juror #6 was eventually dismissed, deemed to be incapable of serving due to the amount of meds she is currently taking.

Humility: Take more than one slice

I've been thinking a lot about the slow death of humility in our world lately.

I taught a Sunday School class this week with a lesson entitled, "Just have a look at how humble I am", and its overarching point was simple: Being humble, for Christians, isn't just cute--it's the exercise of a command.

I read an article from a college newspaper that decried the X and Y generations as simply the generations of the "I". The author was right on. Our generation, if you can call it that, is one that has chosen vanity over humility--the "I" over the "we".

The love of the self, it seems, has permeated every nook and cranny of postmodern life (I shudder to write the term). Wants and needs have become synonymous; the "high thinking, plain living" dictum of our early ancestors is now simply a useless anachronism, too far fetched to be considered legitimate.

Most cultural anthropologists agree that selfishness in the human animal is as a result of conditioning over time, and not a natural (read biological) occurence. This, however, is of no consequence to Christians. We are meant to live our lives in a way that pleases God, and to do that we often have to act against what many (Christians and non-Christians alike) believe to be our nature as human beings.

Such traits, whether by nurture or nature, have to be overcome in order to live a life that is pleasing to God.

It is God, after all, who opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble; He also lives to interecede for us. So why is it so hard for us to intercede for others? Why can we not see the folly of being guided by naked self-interest?

The simple answer could be this: We don't oppose the pride in our own lives, we often equate humility with weakness and we still believe that God's favor is reflected in our petty definitions of success.

Humility is just one of many fruits by which followers of Christ can be recognized, but it is certainly an important one--probably more banana than pear.

All that to say this: We should be different.

Don't pray like the politicians.

Don't give with strings attached.

Don't live your life as if it is your own.

In the New Testament there is a passage that states, in no uncertain terms, that the man who thinks he is something when he is nothing deceives himself.

What it doesn't say, however, is equally true: The man who thinks he is something, even if he is something, is not humble.

False Humility?

Since all this had been on my mind, I was shocked to hear this country's most popular (and most bombastic) radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, tell his audience that he "didn't believe" in what he called "false humility" in a recent interview.

Immediately my mind went in several directions.

Judging only by the manner in which he presented it, I do not doubt that many of his listeners took it as a point of pride for him--and, perhaps, a belief we should all emulate.

Further, it wasn't the first time he has used this quirky term. Because of this, we should be able to get a better grasp of what he means:

But I did want to make note that I finally have now acknowledged what everybody knows, and it is one of the reasons that I am the biggest target of the American left simply because of that power. This is a power, my friends, that could be used for good or evil. I choose to use it for good. ... It's the elephant in the room. Why deny it? That would be false humility, and there's nothing that grates on me more than a person that engages in false humility and tries to laugh it off. ... I'm not going to sit here and deny what you all know. --May 16th, 2007

To engage in false humility, then, is a failure to tout one's own power and prestige when both are self-evident.

This, it is clear, is simply a weasel phrase from a man who boasts of his talent being "on loan from God" on daily basis.

For Christians who believe not only in what the Bible says about humility but in Christ's example, there is no such thing as false humility--only humility. "False" is a misleading modifier.

Denying one's own self-worth is not the same as a failure to express it in one's own terms.

Limbaugh's own hatred for "false humility" is borne out of his "drunk off his own aura" love for himself.

And that, my friends, isn't "on loan from God", either.

It's official: Fundamentalist Christians can vote for Giuliani

Photo: thinkprogress.org

Fundamentalist Christians can now cast a vote for "America's Mayor" with a clear conscience.

No longer will they have to throw their support behind the "who?" candidates like Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee and the recently resigned Sam Brownback.

Now they can root for Rudy.

Why?

Well, because Pat Robertson says so.

Robertson made his endorsement of Giuliani known today in front of what I can only imagine was a stupified press corps in Washington, D.C.

Robertson, perhaps best known for his utterly ridiculous comments regarding the attacks of September 11th, 2001, is now endorsing the most socially liberal of all the Republican candidates for president. (You should recall Robertson blaming our refusal to put an end to abortion--amongst others things--as a causal factor that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people.) It is ironic, too, that it was Giuliani who became the poster boy for American vigilance after the attacks on his city.

What strange bedfellows these two make.

I would imagine both men walked briskly to the nearest bathroom sink after their handshake photo opportunity. Robertson probably used a wire brush and a half bottle of Comet. He would have to really put his shoulder into it to get all that tolerance and permissiveness off.

What this means

Simply put, legions of mindless fundamentalists will throw their support behind Rudy simply on account of this endorsement. Were it not so, candidates like Giuliani and Romney would not covet the endorsements of men like Robertson and Bob Jones III more than all the others. After all, evangelicals, perhaps more than any other interest group, vote as a bloc. These are the "values voters" that every Republican candidate is fawning over.

They won the presidency for Bush in 2000 (my apologies to the Supreme Court) and 2004 and they might just put Mr. Mayor over the top.

Robertson ran for President in 1988, so he is savvy politician in his own right. He knows that Giuliani is the best hedge against Hillary, and so he chose to set aside his long-held convictions on social issues in order to affect the outcome of the election.

Will it work? Of course it will.

My take

Robertson's endorsement is actually a hindrance to my support for his candidacy. I think Robertson makes Christians look ignorant and intolerant most of the time, and I will be hesitant to throw in with his kind.

That being said, the endorsement certainly helps Rudy more than it hurts.

For the Fundys, it's like a twisted rendition of an old hymn: "Pat said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me."

Standing "O" for outstanding line...

"Maverick" McCain makes first appearance in GOP primary race

From the Atlantic Monthly online edition:

The only standing ovation belonged to him for his classic line about Hillary Clinton's Woodstock museum earmark: "I’m sure it was an historical and pharmaceutical event… I was tied up at the time."

McCain, obviously, was referring to his time spent as a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton. It was a lighthearted moment, to be sure, but it gave conservative viewers something they could take home with them--a soundbyte.

What's in a line?

McCain's quick-witted barb may have been just what the doctor ordered. He is making a late charge at the nomination, after faltering out of the blocks like Barbaro at the Preakness.

McCain's campaign got a much needed shot in the arm last night in Orlando. The senior senator from Arizona had the "Straight Talk Express" running on all cylinders, looking like the strongest candidate on the stage with an ingenious mixture of beltway and belt buckle.

He shot from the hip on social issues, defense and even put his convervative credentials up against those of anyone on the stage.

In reference to the Russia Tsar-to-be, Vladamir Putin, McCain said "...when I look into his eyes I see three letters: K, G, B." (An obvious reference to President Bush's claim that he could see into "Puty Poo's" soul.)

McCain's performance was downright shocking after having the appearance of a doddering old man in the last debate in Dearborn, Michigan.

He was the "I'm going to beat Al Gore like a drum" McCain of old.

This MIGHT be a very serious development in the race for the nomination because it could have the effect of robbing Giuliani of his "the only guy who can beat Hillary" base.

The John McCain I saw during the Immigration Bill debate couldn't beat Hillary; the John McCain I saw in Dearborn earlier this month couldn't beat Hillary; but, the John McCain I saw last night could.

Welcome to the race.

A morning with Mr. Malaise

This past Sunday morning, I had a truly unique experience: Sunday School with a former President of the United States.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th President, was born about nine miles from my little outpost in southwest Georgia, in the tiny hamlet of Plains.

Plains is nuts; it's nuts about Jimmy Carter; it's nuts about nuts.

Carter was actually a peanut farmer as a youth, living on a farm just down the tracks from downtown plains--the tracks that young Carter would take most every day to sell his peanuts.

Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, have only owned one home since they married in 1946--a ranch just off highway 280 in Plains, only a few hundred yards west of his brother Billy's old service station.

Carter had attended Plains Baptist Church, situated right across the street from the town's high school, since his childhood. Only after a controversy in which a black man from Albany, Georgia, was denied membership in the church (on dubious grounds) did the Carter's rescind their membership (this came after he "involuntarily" left office in 1980).

The Carters moved no more than 1000 yards down the street to Maranatha Baptist Church, where they have been attending ever since.

Carter, who has been teaching Sunday School regularly since the age of 18, routinely packs more than 300 people into the sanctuary at Marantha. Those who fail to get there early, so I was warned, have to sit in the overflow room and watch Carter on television.

I arrived an hour early to find cars, trucks and buses parked all over the church yard. I drove around the rear of the church looking for a spot in the high grass, popping ground nuts with my tires all along the way.

Walking up to the church, I immediately noticed the jet black SUVs parked out front. This would be the first time I would get a pat down on my way into church. The Secret Service gentlemen really look the part--stone-faced, all business.

I walked into the back hallway and, after being greeted by two elderly ladies, was led to the overflow area where I thought I would have to watch the television with the rest of the Johnny and Jane come-latelys.

After about 20 minutes, one of the deacons of the church came in and said that Carter doesn't like to have anyone in the overflow unless it is absolutely necessary. Since I was there by myself, I was one of the first stragglers to be led into the sanctuary.

Maranatha is the quintessential 1970s-era protestant church, complete with the lime green carpet to clash with nearly everything in the room. The choir loft sits no more than a foot off the main stage to accommodate about 20 people--plenty, one would think, for a church of only 30 members.

A clock hangs high on the back wall of the sanctuary as a reminder to those who would dare become haughty and long-winded--time waits for no one, not even a former president. (The New Testament precept that everything should be done in a "fitting and orderly way" now, at least unofficially, also reads "timely".)

After a FAQ session with a deacon in which she assured the congregation (comprised mostly of visitors) that the Carters weren't just symbolic members of the church--"they're as involved as anyone else"--Maranatha's heavy-set young pastor did a quick devotional.

Mr. Carter arrived, preceded by three Secret Service agents, and, after placing his Bible on the lecturn, commenced politicking with the audience.

(Everyone, at this point, who had a camera decided to use it. The sound of cranking film cameras merged to mimic the washboard section of a jug orchestra. I abstained. For some reason, I thought it was just a little uncouth to do such a thing.)

"Where are y'all from?" asked Carter, still not looking his age (83).

An honest question, considering there were nearly as many people in that small church as live in the entire town.

Folks from Michigan, Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, Indiana, Alabama, Florida, Canada and even England piped up to represent their home states and countries.

After a couple minutes, Mr. Carter offered quick update on his recent trip to Sudan and their tenuous (if not feckless) peace agreement. (You might remember that Carter was involved in a highly-publicized donnybrook with one Sudanese official at the outset of his trip to Darfur.) His jet-setting comrades, known, if only colloquially, as the "Elders", teams Mr. Carter up with other visionaries like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.

Mr. Carter's lesson was taken from the 28th Chapter of Genesis--a snapshot of the life of Jacob, a swindler, whom God loved.

For a geography junkie, listening to Mr. Carter teach the Old Testament was truly a pleasure. Mr. Carter has walked the streets of the towns I've only read about--Beersheba, Bethel and Ur.

For a political junkie, hearing Mr. Carter talk about his relationship with Anwar Sadat was fascinating. Sadat, the former president of Egypt who lost his life when he was ambushed by Islamist militants in 1981, was the last best hope for peace in the Middle East.

Sadat, as Mr. Carter correctly pointed out, wasn't an avowed secularist like Nasser before him or like Turkey's Mustafa Kemal. He was a moderate Muslim (a nationalist, to be sure) who dared to suggest that all three "children of Abraham" (Jews, Muslims and Christians) could worship together, and in peace. He dared to make peace with Israel, and it cost him his life. (Egypt's current President Hosni Mubarak, for his part, has staved off six assassination attempts thus far as he continues an ugly crackdown on Islamist groups in Egypt.)

After a few of these geopolitical tangents, all of which fascinated me to no end, Mr. Carter returned to his theme of the week--perhaps, more correctly, the theme of his life.

Grace.

God's grace was evident in the life of Jacob, and there are plenty of corollaries in the New Testament--the life of Christ is one long case study in grace.

God loved Jacob, in spite of himself. (In fact, Jacob is the only person in the Old Testament whom God said he loved.)

In short, Mr. Carter's life in Christ is nothing if not full of grace. He is at-once loved and hated for his willingness to believe in the goodness of all people, often ignoring their fruits to believe in their roots.

He believes that God's grace is universal and transcendent.

That was his lesson.

The clock on the wall said 10:45, and after more than 80 years in the Baptist Church, Mr. Carter, perhaps more than anyone, knows the rules.

He snatched his Bible off the lecturn and exited stage right before remembering one last thing: "If anyone wants to get their picture taken, Rosalynn and I would be willing to do that outside after the service. I used to say 'delighted', now I'm just willing," he quipped.

The controversial Carter

No president is without fault. The system of politics in this country is, increasingly, driven by the moral equivalent of the survival of the fittest--only in reverse.

My opinion of Carter, as a man, is exceedingly positive. He is a statesman, a gentleman and a servant of his God and country. He is the genuine article, and my personal disagreements with him on geopolitical issues need not affect my respect for him as a man--a perspective rightly considered lost in our hyperpartisan society.

In a depraved world, living a life directed by grace will lead you to sup with some unsavory characters--and Mr. Carter has entertained more than his fair share: Yasser Arafat, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Omar al-Bashir, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Kim Il Sung, and members of ETA (Basque separatists) just to name a few.

As President and leading diplomat, however, grace hasn't proven to be an effective foreign policy in many cases. Mr. Carter's pacifist (read full of grace) stance on Iran after Reza Shan was deposed earned for the world the Islamic Republic of Iran, the most dangerous country since Hilter's Germany. (It's an unpopular, though legitimate, assertion that western--chiefly U.S.--trifling in the affairs of oil-rich countries in the Middle East led to the rise of Islamism in the region. In much the same way, U.S. foreign policy in Latin America led to the rise of what could be labeled militant populism.)

His grace toward Omar al-Bashir in Sudan may prove to be shrewd diplomacy or dangerous glad-handing of a cruel dictator. Mr. Carter's insistence on not labeling the catastrophe in Darfur as a "genocide" belies (at best) an understanding of what the term really means--it's more than just a body count.

And while Mr. Carter might be able to see some shred of goodness in the lives of men like Bashir, Mugabe, Eyadema and their ilk, most of us cannot or will not even consider the possibility.

Most of us prefer to veto grace at various times, replacing it instead with justice.

Further, Mr. Carter's ardent critiques of the Bush Administration's foreign policy do, at least on the surface, seem brazen when placed in the context of his own failures on the world stage.

That being said, however, it is clear that President Bush was, indeed, co-opted by the Neoconservatives in the White House and Pentagon in the run-up to war. Further, failures do abound in the aftermath of the "shock and awe" campaign at the outset of the war in Iraq. After the plan of attack, it seems, the planning stopped. The United States government, at least ostensibly, is no more adept at protecting the Iran-Iraq border than the border with Mexico.

This is simple discourse.

The policies of the Bush Administration, it appears, are more regrettable than criminal. They are worthy of critique and, to be sure, some bit of incredulity about our future in Iraq is reasonable.

There is grace in fighting for the termination of the United States' embargo against Cuba (more correctly, against Cubans); it's a good fight and one that is worth winning for us, and them. (Do most Americans even understand why China is our most favored nation when it comes to trade and Cuba is locked out?)

Who's talking about Cuba other than Mr. Carter?

There is grace (not to mention several other fruits of the spirit) in attempting to broker peace deals between rival factions in Darfur and Palestine, where common people are being used as pawns in a geopolitical chess game.

There was grace in handing over the Panama Canal to Panama--there just wasn't a lot of money (or electoral votes) in it.

Presidential historians won't remember Carter as a particularly great politician. In fact, he'll probably take his place behind "memorable" presidents like Chester Arthur and Martin Van Buren.

Even so, he is a shining light inside a most exclusive fraternity.

He was a sitting president and a standing civilian.

Giul to wear the crown

When I was a kid, my two favorite things in the world were sports and politics.

When I wasn't watching the Lions or the Tigers, I was reading about the Asian Tigers (NIEs in the Far East) and the so-called "Lion of Judah", Haile Selassie.

Politics, like sports, is competitive and truly dramatic; and it occurred to me at some point along the journey, that politics is actually sport in the truest sense.

It was no surprise, then, that Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) and James Traficant (D-Ohio) were every bit as inspiring to me in my youth as Dominique Wilkins (F-Georgia) and Corey Dillon (RB-Ohio).

I shudder to think of it. (Gingrich, a noted history buff, turned out to be an adulterer while Traficant, of "beam me up Mr. Speaker" fame, is in jail serving time for extortion.)

But, for someone as disgusted with partisanship as I've become, it's still somewhat bizarre that the campaign trail has its same old appeal.

I can't get enough of this stuff.

And, what have I taken away from every presidential election in my lifetime (at least the ones I can remember)?

The issues are secondary; what matters most, it seems, is who you would have a beer with (root or otherwise). Who has that certain something that political wonks like me have come to know as "gravitas"?

And so, with that in mind, here are my projections for campaign 2008...

The Right's Big Three

Mitt Romney - He could be the first Republican to win Massachusetts in a general election since Reagan. To do that, he would first have to win the nomination. Unfortunately for the Religious Right, he won't. He is much too rehearsed and business-like in his approach to appear genuine (likeable) to the all too important swing voters.

His connection to the church of Latter Day Saints doesn't hurt him as much as many pundits had projected, mostly because he is the most culturally conservative of the big three. His gaffe (stating that he would consult lawyers before taking action against Iran) at Tuesday night's debate in Dearborn, Michigan, will follow him everywhere he goes. In a moment of national security urgency, do we really want someone wringing his hands over the War Powers Act?

Fred Thompson - The mainstream media's lovefest with Thompson is officially over. The tardy Thompson, inexplicably, turned his quasi-celebrity (he is a reoccuring character on NBC's "Law and Order") into excellent poll numbers based on nothing. His campaign, it seems, is more "Seinfield" than "Law and Order" to this point.

After Tuesday night's hum-drum performance at the debate, I am left wondering how the debate's organizers found a big enough lecturn to hold the guy up. He's not a bad man, but he couldn't inspire most people to zip-up their fly. He, like Bob Dole in 1996, appears to be setting aside his gregarious disposition in favor of a more laconic one; it's one that may, if relevance has anything to say about it, earn for him a spot somewhere between Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in the next debate.

Rudy Giuliani - Rudy is the most skilled debater I've seen since Bill Clinton. He has a command of the issues to go along with a Clintonesque "I feel your pain" aura. How are you going to dislike this guy when you want to like him so bad? This phenomenon is quite functional, too, when you consider that Rudy, like Bill Clinton, has his share of skeltons in the closet.

Fringe Leftists hate Rudy because he's not progressive enough and fringe Rightists hate him because he's not conservative enough; it sounds like a perfect mix. At the very least, Rudy doesn't have to worry about appealing to a base that he doesn't have.

Also, if history is any indicator, Americans are somewhat less than inclined to perceive members of Congress as anything more than do-nothings. That, perhaps more than any other factor, has led Giuliani and Romney to the top of the heap. They have resumes and experience behind the desk where the buck stops. Romney will win the opening salvo in Iowa, but Giuliani will be the nominee. He's the only one with a popsicle's chance in hell of beating Hillary. Heck, my state of Michigan might actually be back in play in 2008.

Rudy is the only candidate who can beat Hillary in a general election. That alone should compel voters into the booth to pull the lever for Rudy, even if they have hold their nose while doing it.

The Left's Big Three

Barack Obama - Obama is still young, so his best days are ahead of him. Unfortunately for the Dems, I believe their best in brightest is not Obama, but Harold Ford who failed in his run for the Senate in Tennessee last year. Obama, unlike Ford could, simply does not appeal to the red states in middle America (known by many elitists as the "flyover states"). He is not as far left as John Edwards, but he's close enough to read the "kick me" sign on his back.

Sure he's playing well in Iowa, but he has invested more time and money in Iowa than any other candidate. He has to win the Hawkeye state to have any chance against Hillary. Further, his "audacity of Hope" is cute but hardly effective in a battle against the Clinton cabal. If he chooses not to go after Hillary, he will be heading back to the Land of Lincoln with his tail between his legs.

John Edwards - The North Carolinian looks fairly presidential in primary debates because, as is normally the case, he isn't challenged to a great extent. In a general debate, Edwards would try and fail to justify the great chasm between word and deed that his political life so aptly represents. It is, after all, Edwards who talks about "two Americas" during the day, the haves and have-nots, and at night hits the hay in a 20,000 square foot home on property worth millions. He is a guardian class elitist who doesn't even believe the tripe coming from his own mouth. Additionally, he has more than $500 haircuts to worry about. Republicans will kill him on the Iran issue (namely his vote against the characterization of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as "terrorist") as well as certain other peccadillos that will soon come to light.

Hillary Clinton - Mrs. Clinton is the prohibitive favorite not because of who her husband is, as odd as that sounds. She, perhaps as a result of her experiences with her husband, is the smartest politican on the Democratic side. She is the most conservative Democrat of the big three, despite what you might hear on conservative talk radio shows; she is, by comparison, a hawk with respect to national security issues. She knows that being seen as a moderate, while still being critical of the Bush Administration's failings, may be her ticket to the White House. She's tougher than Geraldine Ferraro; heck, she's tougher than Obama and Edwards. Obama may win Iowa, but Hillary wins the nomination.

2008 Prediction

Giuliani d. Clinton

"America's mayor" will be the 44th President of the United States. He will get the evangelical votes, despite their misgivings about his record on social issues (gay unions, gun control, abortion, etc.), as well as the votes of the moderate Republicans and the anti-Hillary bloc (and the swing voters therein). Hillary will turn out a lot of voters, and many of them for all the wrong reasons.

24 years of rule by the "two families" (an obvious organized crime reference) just reeks of old world monarchy, and I don't think that's lost on the minds of many Americans.