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.

An ideological timeline

I thought it might be fun to revisit my youth for a little insight into the development of ideologies--or, more correctly, the acceptance and denial of ideologies.

Everyday we are bombarded with misinformation about every kind of noun, and it’s increasingly difficult to decipher between reality and imagery.

Luckily, ideologues stand at the ready to train you in the art of groupthink—conformity to a certain set of ideals to achieve a certain end.

(I hope you caught the sarcasm there, because as David Spade quipped in Tommy Boy, "I'm laying it on pretty thick.")

Ideologies are certainly not new; that being said, it does seem like a somewhat modern phenomenon to have two consolidated ideologies transform the discourse of an entire country (America in this case) into a simplistic binary opposition—left versus right, Democrat versus Republican, liberal versus conservative, however you choose to label it.

I don’t want to turn into one of the “what happened to my country” blowhards, but I would like to present a somewhat helpful, if not cumbersome, timeline of my own experience with these two noxious ideologies.

I can remember, in my younger days, always being very positive about my country in every way. What was not to like?

I was educated in arguably the most diverse school district in the state of Michigan, and I didn’t even know it at the time. My America wasn’t a “diverse America”, though, it was just America.

I didn’t know that being there, in that time and place, would shape the way I looked at the world. And I didn’t know then that it would take so long to get back to where I was.

Micah, who wanted to be a weatherman, and Ken the math whiz weren’t black, they were Micah and Ken; Jeff and Gabby weren’t Jews, they were Jeff and Gabby; Genie wasn’t Greek, she was just the smartest girl in my class; Jameel wasn’t Pakistani, he was one of my best friends.

Those were the good old days before my brain was convoluted with all manner of misgivings. Everything was just right because I knew of no other way; but, that quickly began to change.

I didn't question the politicians who constantly boasted from the stump that our country was the greatest country in the world. Why not? Things seemed pretty good for me and pretty bad for a lot of other people.

I didn't live in the Middle East with all the brown people who wore towels on their heads and threw rocks at tanks? Who does that? What could a rock do to a tank, anyway? And why weren't they in school? As an older child, I finally found out what Muslims and Jews “looked like” and the only ones I knew back then were rich and they were the ones driving the tanks—we started calling them SUVs around that time.

I didn't live in Canada where the jealous "wannabe" Americans lived. I remember thinking about just how pathetic Canadians actually were; I mean, how many of those colorful bills could I get for just a few greenbacks? Pathetic. Canada was so close and yet so far away. And in what parallel universe could "The Kids in the Hall" and “Mr. Bean” actually be considered funny?

I didn't live in France or Belgium or any of those feckless Scandanavian countries. What did those frogs know about fighting a war? Where were those Nordic-types during World War II? Probably skiing someplace, whittling wooden shoes or erecting goofy windmills. Those poor saps live in welfare states where transient junkies huddle around every corner; who were they to question my country when the tanks rolled into Baghdad? In America we lock our junkies up and throw away the keys.

I didn't live in Africa where the dark people lived; well, the dark people and the missionaries that is. Africa never made sense to me. Why didn't they have roads or phones or televisions? I knew they were poor, but how much poorer could they have been compared to the kids down the street? You know, the kids whose father squandered his paycheck entering junk cars into the demolition derby. But, they were poor and I knew it.

I had to sit through boring missions services at church on a fairly regular basis--complete with pictures of kids forcing smiles in squalor. It made me feel good to think that Christians were helping Africans go to heaven. But why do we have to help them? Why us? It seemed to me that we were blessed and they were forsaken for a reason; I just couldn't figure out why.

I didn't live in South America or Mexico where the machete-wielding banana republicans lived; I never understood those people either. Were they Indians or Spaniards? Why were they speaking Spanish a half a world away from Spain? And why were those Mexicans still trying to take over Texas? Texas is ours and always has been, right?

I didn't live in Asia where the smart people lived. They seemed very American in a lot of ways, but they were certainly smarter than us. The kids over there go to school year-round and would certainly have all of our jobs before too long. All the I was told were Asian were smart, rich and named Neil, or Michael or Johnny. Asians never seemed threatening to me, but, then again, I didn't have a job for them to take.

As the world became more complicated, I became somewhat obsessed with explaining it away. I loved books because they provided answers; right or wrong, I had something I could turn to in my attempt to figure it all out.

As I grew older, non-threatening people were increasingly few and far between in my world. Everyone, as far as I was concerned, who wasn't American, or at least openly pro-American, only wanted to bring us down--down to their level. That wasn't going to happen on my watch. I stood at the ready to defend my country against anyone who had one negative word to say about it. I read books by authors who were of like mind. Men like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and Alan Keyes really appealed to me. They recognized the greatness of my country and they wanted to keep it that way.

These ideologues had an affect on me before I even knew what the term meant.

All this changed for me when I became an adult and began to take an inventory of the interested parties. The "what" was no longer good enough in my life; I had to know the "why."

I knew I was supposed to be a conservative, but why? What did I have in common with my intellectual heroes and the wisdom they were espousing? The answer, I soon found out, was very little.

So, I looked elsewhere.

When I got to college I immersed myself in the works of the heroes of the left—Marx and Engels, Zinn, Nader and Chomsky. The same curiosity that led me to the right was now pushing me left. But there was still a lot of unanswered questions that nihilist leftist ideologies only served to expand.

And so, in an attempt to rebuke one ideology I pursued another.

But that’s life. It’s full of questions in need of answers. And it’s this pursuit that has led me to the point at which I can say with confidence that, at least for a time, ideologies destroyed the natural tolerance of my youth.

Today, everywhere I look I find little bits of truth in need of gathering. I don’t find them piled up in one corner or another—my old expectations are gone.

Our house is full of truth, but it’s a big house; and I’ve learned that one must be willing to look in some strange places to find it. And, in order to do that, we must spurn these noxious ideologies that pit us against one another.

In the end, I came back to the center where the boring people live, breathe and wring their hands. From here, I can gravitate toward the truth in whichever direction it pulls me.

A caricature at Columbia

Caricature by John Cox (coxandforkum.com)

I couldn't help but to take a long lunch on Monday to take in the speech and subsequent Q & A forum with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at Columbia University in New York.

There was a great deal of popular chagrin directed toward Columbia University's president, Lee Bollinger (formerly the top brass at the University of Michigan), after he extended an invitation to the "terror of Tehran" to coincide with his trip to speak in front of the United Nations.

For those who defended the actions of Bollinger, the buzz phrase was "freedom of speech"; that somewhat fickle argument just doesn't do it for me--not now, not ever.

Simply put, there is nothing intrinsically good about exercising rights--this is a significant philosophical mistake. Ahmadinejad certainly had the right to speak, and Columbia had the right to invite him to their campus; but, that's not "what's great about America" as so many are prone to say.

What's great about American is that we have those rights. Try having an academic forum in Iran with President Bush or Ehud Olmert. Professors in Tehran don't even have the right to criticize their own leadership. And, those who have attempted to do so have been dealt with harshly (see the "new cultural revolution" that began after his 2005 election).

Disinviting the Iranian President would not have signified anything other than grace under fire (and, it is helpful to remember, something that they've done before). It was a mistake for Bollinger to bring the head of a rogue nation to his campus on a few fronts:

1.) Iran is a terrorist state

One would think that this alone would make him exempt from using one of our country's most presitigious universities as a platform for his tripe. Iran is funding what amounts to a proxy war against coalition (mostly American) forces in Iraq. Further, Iran funds one of the world's most notorious terror groups--Lebanon's Hezbollah.

This is to say nothing of Iran's ruthless domestic policies that repress Muslims and non-Muslims alike (read about people of the Baha'i faith and their treatment in Iran). Women are persecuted (imprisoned for not being covered from head-to-floor*), homosexuals (which Ahmadinejad claims do not exist in Iran--"I don't know who told you that they did...") are executed and there is no such thing as a free press (for a contemporary example of this fact, read about the speech in the state-run press in Iran and all the "standing ovations...")

Ahmadinejad is packing prisons full of dissidents in an apparent effort to reignite the "moral" fervor that brought about Iran's Islamic Revolution under the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. So, we should not be surprised, then, to see hangings making a return to public life (and, in many cases, you don't even have to leave the living room to watch them). And not just hangings, but stonings that normally involve women being buried up to their necks and, in some cases, in the presence of their children.** This practice has, ostensibly, been in moratorium in Iran since 2002, but evidence suggests otherwise (see Amnesty International report).

2.) PR

In the eyes of the public, Columbia could scarcely look worse. He alienated nearly everyone with any connection to the school, especially the school's Jewish community. (A relationship that may be bruised forever after Bollinger confessed that he would have offered a similiar forum to Hilter in the 1930s. As if Ahmadinejad's own words about wiping Israel "off the map" weren't enough to cause some derision.)

In an effort to be seen as a strict cosmopolitan, the milquetoast academic made the mistake that will inevitably become his legacy as president of the university.

3.) Academic Integrity

To call the forum with Ahmadinejad an "academic" forum is a total misuse of the term. Bollinger played the role of chickenhawk as he kowtowed to the furious masses by taking cheap shots at his guest BEFORE he had even spoken a word. It looked like a desperate attempt by the president to score points with a disgusted populace.

Further, had Bollinger done any research into his guest's track record, he would have known that Ahmadinejad DOES NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS. Ahmadinejad's schtick hasn't been considered academic since Plato went about impersonating Socrates nearly 2400 years ago.

Bollinger, then, simply gave him a platform from which to speak his unenlightened rot.

Studying propaganda is academic; producing it is not.

Ahmadinejad, apparently, is a master of illusions as evidenced by the applause (much more than a smattering) he received from many of the 600 in attendance at Columbia. The fact that Ahmadinejad is a puppet of the mullahs and ayatollahs in his country doesn't make him any less dangerous. It is clear that he is making every attempt to build consensus in the world against the "arrogant powers"--the United States, Israel, Britain and, before long, Sarkozy's France.

And, thanks to some strange historical phenomenon, people are listening.

Ahmadinejad's appeal to the non-aligned countries of the world during his speech before the United Nations is every bit as scary as it is transparent. Iran is bloc-building, preying upon the empty-headed anti-American hysteria that exists in some parts of the world.

And, as is now clear after the Columbia debacle, we now live in one of those parts.

Keep churning out your allied lemmings, Lee. Their prestigious degrees will make for impressive sandwich boards one day.

*Indeed, even hospitals in Iran have been directed to refuse aid to women who do not meet the strict code of dress. (See "Islamic Republic of Fear", in the Economist (August 23, 2007)

**"Rules also specify the size of the stones which can be thrown so that death is painful and not imminent." (IPS News, September 29, 2006)

Defending the indefensible

It became clear to me this past week that race relations in this country are never more than a single incident away from falling to pieces.

To say that what happened in Jena, Louisiana, is a microcosm of the problem of racism is irresponsible.

It's not. It's just another case of misguided justice in the wildwood of rural America.

For those of you who know nothing of the saga that has unfolded in central Louisiana over the past year, here is the truncated version:

Jena, a small town of less than 5,000 people, is overwhelmingly white; and, like most cities in the Deep South, it has a sizeable minority of blacks that is, for lack of a better term, cordoned off in one part of town.

Late last year, when several black students at Jena High School decided they wanted to sit under a shade tree that was, ostensibly, for whites only (called the "white tree"), all hell broke loose in the town.

The following day, three whites students hung nooses from the tree and were subsequently compelled to serve in-school suspensions for a short period of time. (This, in spite of the fact that both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office felt the incident rose to the level of a hate crime.)

Months later, a white student was attacked in the schoolyard by six black students. The student was badly beaten, but did not spend the night in the hospital.

Five of the students, inexplicably, were charged with attempted second-degree murder. The sixth was charged as a juvenile.

One of the six, Mychal Bell, was also a juvenile at the time of the incident (he was 16) and was tried as an adult.

Bell, whose record wasn't clean to begin with, never stood a chance:

--He faced an all white jury drawn from an all white pool.

--His court-appointed attorney failed to call a single witness, believing that the prosecution hadn't proven its case. (Something that could not have been evident considering the unanimous verdict the jury returned.)

--He had to answer to a zealous prosecutor who, from the outside looking in, did not fulfill his duty without respect to persons.

The trumped up charges against Bell and the others were eventually reduced to aggravated second-degree battery--a charge that requires the use of a "deadly weapon." Since no deadly weapon was involved, the district attorney was successful in convincing the all-white and (apparently) all-clueless jury that the accused's tennis shoes were deadly weapons.

Bell was convicted of the crime that carried a maximum punishment of 22 years in prison. Soon after, the conviction was overturned by the the Louisiana Court of Appeals. (The district attorney in Lasalle Parish is set to appeal the Appeals Court decision.)

The charges against the other four (sans the minor) are unaffected by the decision in Bell's case, as they were all over 17 at the time and, according to Louisiana law, technically adults.

What has happened in Jena is tragic on three fronts.

--The charges against these six individuals were CLEARLY trumped up and race DID play a role in their treatment. The white students that precipitated this conflict got a slap on the wrist. (This was not the only incident in the town that year that involved preferential treatment for whites, however.)

--The district attorney failed to seek justice for the young man who was beaten. Instead, he sought retribution; the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

--The district attorney's apparent double standard in the issuance of charges for whites and blacks convicted of the same crime puts people like me in a position to defend six young men who do not deserve it. They made a huge mistake, and deserve to be punished. Unfortunately they are now considered victims--and for good reason.

Racism does exist in this country, and this will never change. What has to change, however, is the way we react in this country to incidents like the one in Jena.

If I didn't know any better, I would think that this one incident in this tiny town in Lousiana actually set race relations back to the mid 50s.

Again, it didn't.

During these moments people seem all too eager to run to a side, blindly defending the indefensible.

The Jena Six committed a crime.

The district attorney is Jena is probably a racist.

I'm not going to waste any time defending the actions of either.

ANTlanta

Rather than spending Labor Day weekend couped up in smalltown America, I decided to visit my sister, brother-in-law and niece in Charlotte, North Carolina.

After work on Friday, I pointed my car towards Atlanta where I would spend the night.

On the way, I stopped at Andersonville, GA, home of the notorious Andersonville Prison where thousands of Union Soldiers were imprisoned during the Civil War.

Andersonville possesses that duality that almost always exists in historic places. It is at-once breathtaking and burdensome, leaning on the knowledge of all the horrors the ground I was standing on once upheld.

After spending the better part of an hour circling the prison yard and adjacent cemetary, I hopped back on state road 49 en route to Interstate 75.

I arrived to my hotel on the southside of Atlanta (Jonesboro area, another notable Civil War era town(, dropped off my luggage and got something to eat just down the road at Sonny's.

After a good night's sleep, I checked out of my room at around nine and when I got out to my car I didn't know whether to flip or fall in it.

Ants.

There were ants all over the INSIDE of my car.

All over the console, the seats, the floor mats, the door panels...everywhere.

I immediately looked around to find some port of entry for these ants and, finding none, I started to search for some earthly reason why they would have any interest in my car. (Although, I have been told that only the lowest form of life would ever get into a Chrysler...)

And then I saw the open package of Sour Patch Kids in my seat.

I had found the culprit.

And so, I did my best to swallow my disgust for these nasty little creatures and proceeded out of the parking lot and across 75 to a gas station. I spent the next 30 minutes with a vacuum, an air hose and a can of bug spray. (Not raid, mind you, but the kind you apply to your skin.)

I got the majority of the ants out of the car, but I still had to battle the most ambitious arthopods all the way to Charlotte. I would say that it simply helped to pass the time, but I would be lying.

It was disgusting.

Once in Charlotte, I spent most of my time hanging out with my 4-month-old niece. I also mixed in a little shopping at Concord Mills. I'm not much of a shopper, but I needed a new pair of shoes.

My niece, Jaedyn, is a lot more active than she was the last time I saw her--only three weeks ago! She speaks a lot more gibberish and has already begun to dwarf other babies her age.

On Sunday night, I went to the Nascar Speedpark in Concord with my sister, her husband, and their neighbors, Jessica and Jonathan. After ravaging two of the park's go-cart tracks, we all played 18 holes of putt-putt--Jeff won.

I left early Monday morning to go back to south Georgia on a different route than the won that took me there. (Within reason, this is my longstanding policy for traveling by car.)

Instead of traveling through Atlanta, Greenville and Spartangburg, I drove through Columbia, Augusta and nearly 100 miles of the Georgian wildwood.

In total, it took me about six hours not including my hour-long jaunt around Augusta just to get a peek at Magnolia Drive.

I made it back in time to watch Phil Mickelson beat Tiger Woods in the Deutsche Bank Championship in Boston.

All-in-all, not a bad way to spend a Labor Day weekend.

FATSO

The real problem with healthcare in the United States is overuse, not corporate greed.

Enter the American Fatso, Michael Moore.

Moore's latest work, "Sicko", is another in a long line of documentaries that are less about documenting events as they unfold and more about pushing a socialist agenda.

He plays fast and loose with the truth, yet again, by bombarding viewers with sob stories and diversions that take away from even the possibility of an unaffected discourse on the issue.

Somewhere in the haze lies his point: Healthcare in the United States should attempt to mimic Canada's system of healthcare-for-all. It is truly embarrassing that there are millions in the world's richest country that are without proper healthcare.

He's wrong, and he's right.

Canada's system isn't perfect. Since healthcare is available to all, it is often not available in a timely fashion because of the sheer volume of need--or in the case of overuse, want.

And, it is to our shame that we have so many people without healthcare. This should never be the case in a land of plenty like America.

Truth be told, I don't run scared from socialist ideologies like so many in this country do. I, for one, embrace many facets of the socialist ethos including universal healthcare.

Ideally, we would all have a minimum level of healthcare. I sympathize will folks who do not have healthcare coverage. It's easy because I'm one of them, and have been for several years.

That being said, desiring healthcare for all is simple, but the devil is in the details.

Universal healthcare simply cannot work within societies that overuse existing medical resources--societies like ours, awash in gluttony.

It is much too expensive.

Healthcare in America is already pricey, but not for the fact that it remains, for the most part, a for-profit enterprise.

Americans go to the doctor too much.

As long as we continue beating a path to the good doctor's office every time we have a sniffle, the cost of healthcare will continue to rise.

Recently I had a friend try to opt in to the healthcare plan at his place of work only to find out that the cost was astronomical.

Why? Because half the staff he works with is obese and wreaking havoc on that provider's bottom line. (So is that the fault of the profit-makers, or the fatsos?)

Obesity in America is an epidemic from childhood through adolesence and into adulthood.

This is a fat country and we are paying a high cost for it.

How ironic, then, that the spokesperson for a nationalized, not-for-profit healthcare system is himself a revolting blob.

People who take Moore seriously need medical attention, if only they could afford it.

Moore is a typical guardian class elitist who pretends to know what's best for the peasants, while keeping his mouth covered at a distance.

He's a limousine liberal.

Moore, like Hillary Clinton, support public schools and universal healthcare; but, do not think for one minute that they would EVER subject their loved ones to rubbing elbows with commoners.

And so while I accept that a for-profit healthcare system has numerous pitfalls, I am not willing to subscribe to this idea that a national healthcare system could remain salient without some serious restraints on use.

Restraints that, of course, would not affect elitists like Michael Moore.

Don't get me wrong, corporate greed is a serious problem in this country, and especially as it relates to healthcare. Too many people are denied claims for the express purpose of turning a dollar, this much is obvious.

But, the bigger issue is that those among us who have health insurance continue to be irresponsible with it.

Slim down, America, or you, too, will look like Michael Moore.

Commuter-in-Chief

This week's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence for obstruction of justice in the CIA leak investigation is just another in a long line of second term blunders for which President Bush will be remembered.

For those among us who voted for Bush the second time around, it has become abundantly clear that he isn't who we thought he was.

Many of us came to the conclusion that his plain-spokenness and old-fashioned dungaree disposition made him unique in Washington--a shiny buckle inside the beltway.

We were wrong.

President Bush is a corrupt politician at his core, corrupt even in his feigned old west populism.

And while it is clear that Scooter Libby lied about his involvement in spilling the beans with regard to Plame, who was an undercover CIA operative at the time, what is more troubling is that Libby is probably just another useful political cast-off--the quintessential fall guy.

Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, is a virulent anti-Iraq War critic and outing her, in my humble opinion, the Bush Administration's way of taking revenge for undermining the effort.

Borrowing the title of a David Horowitz (or Sun Tzu) book, it is the art of political war.

Libby got sentenced to 2 1/2 years in federal prison and fined 250,000 bucks. Since, of course, paying the fine won't be much of a problem for Libby, Bush saw to it to award him clemency without every serving a day behind bars.

This is the unchecked executive power of the President at work, and it stinks to high heaven.

The same people who were outraged when President Clinton pardoned his derelict brother, George, and international scumbag, Marc Rich, should be every bit as disappointed in Bush for enaging in blatant cronyism.

But, they won't be because they cannot see truth through that opaque veil of partisanship that continually clouds their judgement.

Presidents Bush and Clinton both defended their constitutional right to pardon and commute such sentences as if that, by itself, made their decision just. Like the Apostle Paul wrote, their actions may have been "permissable," but they were certainly not constructive.

Like I.F. Stone wrote many years ago, "all governments lie."

Bush on Immigration

Suffice it to say, there are several facets of the on again/off again immigration bill that I actually agree with.

That being said, President Bush (and other prominent Republicans like Lindsey Graham) is breaking ranks with conservatives and throwing in with Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid for the express purpose of putting his party in good stead with the largest minority group in the United States--Hispanics.

At the very least, when Lyndon Johnson pandered to African-Americans in the early 1960s (Civil Rights Act of 1964) he did so with the after effect of empowering millions of marginalized minorities.

LBJ did it for votes, and it worked.

The merit of the 2007 immigration bill, however, is dubious at best. Bush and his cronies in the Republican Party ostensibly support the legislation because they've decided that illegal immigration is good for business in this country.

Again, such an assertion is dubious because illegal immigration is clearly a strain on the economy as well (social services, education, etc.)

Granting legal status to 12 million or more illegals living in the United States currently is amnesty irrespective of the measures that are to be put in place in the interim.

Illegal today, legal tomorrow...that's amnesty.

(And yes, race does play a role in the equation. The fact that the vast majority of the illegals in this country are hispanic is part of the reason many conservative are virulently against the bill. It's a regrettable mindset, to be sure.)

The bottom line is that the United States government is responsible for the security of our borders and it is failing. Protect the borders, enforce the law and only then will this country be in a position to utilize the reserve labor pool to the south.

It's poor timing on the part of Bush, the Democrats, and those few churlish Republicans who will take it on the chin for playing kissy-face with the far left.

Jared's top 100 songs...

I was really bored tonight, so I decided to sit down to do what I do best--making lists. And so, what follows is my top 100 songs of all-time.

1.) About a Girl by Nirvana (From Unplugged)
2.) Bittersweet Symphony by The Verve
3.) Fix You by Coldplay
4.) Still Fighting It by Ben Folds Five
5.) Gimme Shelter by The Rolling Stones
6.) Dreams by The Cranberries
7.) Amsterdam (Live) by Coldplay
8.) Time Makes Two by Robert Cray
9.) The Last Goodbye by Jeff Buckley
10.)King's Crossing by Elliott Smith
11.) I Feel Home by O.A.R.
12.) See You Soon (Live) by Coldplay
13.) Near You Always by Jewel
14.) Fade to Grey by Jars of Clay
15.) You Remind Me of Home by Ben Gibbard
16.) Sleeping In by The Postal Service
17.) One by U2
18.) Everything's Not Lost (Live) by Coldplay
19.) Two Step (Live) by Dave Matthews Band
20.) Say Hello, Wave Goodbye by David Gray
21.) 1979 by Smashing Pumpkins
22.) Spirit in the Sky by Norman Greenbaum
23.) All Over Again by B.B. King
24.) Jenny was a Friend of Mine by The Killers
25.) If You Could Only See by Tonic
26.) Reading Stones by Oh My God
27.) Get Rhythmn by Johnny Cash
28.) Sweet Home Chicago by Robert Johnson (performed by Buddy Guy)
29.) California Love by Dr. Dre and 2Pac
30.) Superstitious by Steve Wonder
31.) In the Garden (Hymn) performed by Alan Jackson
32.) Dante Symphony by Franz Liszt
33.) Lake of Fire by Nirvana (Unplugged)
34.) Consider the Cost by Steve Camp
35.) White Shadows by Coldplay
36.) Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival
37.) No Rain by Blind Melon
38.) Satellite by P.O.D.
39.) Boy on a String by Jars of Clay
40.) Crazy Game of Poker by O.A.R.
41.) February 14th by Oh My God
42.) Angel Standing By by Jewel
43.) A Thousand Miles by Vanessa Carlton
44.) Angel From Montgomery by Susan Tedeschi
45.) City of Blinding Lights by U2
46.) The Rach by Rachmaninoff
47.) Go Rest High on that Mountain by Vince Gill
48.) June by Pete Yorn
49.) Above All by Michael W. Smith
50.) Sixteen by No Doubt
51.) Bourgeois Blues by Leadbelly
52.) My Redeemer Lives by Nicole Mullen
53.) Losing My Religion by R.E.M.
54.) Burn by Usher
55.) Tears of Joy by Robert Randolph and the Family Band
56.) Southside by Moby
57.) Light My Fire by the Doors
58.) The Rock that was Rolled Away by Clay Crosse
59.) Thunderstruck by ACDC
60.) The Warmth by Incubus
61.) Spoken by Spooky Tuesday
62.) Run by Snow Patrol
63.) The Killing Floor Blues by Howlin' Wolf (performed by Robert Cray)
64.) No One Loves Me Like You by Jars of Clay
65.) Touch, Peel and Stand by Days of the New
66.) Wonderwall by Oasis
67.) Miss Misery by Elliott Smith
68.) Pie Jesu by Charlotte Church
69.) Am I High? by N.E.R.D.
70.) Paying the Cost to be the Boss by B.B. King
71.) All Nereids Beware by Chiodos
72.) The Seed by The Roots
73.) Everything is Good by Oh My God
74.) Boom, Boom by John Lee Hooker
75.) Fistful of Steel by Rage Against the Machine
76.) Fit But You Know It by The Streets
77.) Get By by Talib Kweli
78.) Devil Got My Woman by Skip James
79.) Where'd You Go? by Fort Minor
80.) #41 by Dave Matthews Band
81.) Cocaine by Eric Clapton
82.) The Kids Aren't Alright by Offspring
83.) Israel's Son by Silverchair
84.) Sweet Surrender by Sarah McLachlan
85.) Broken Heart by Dashboard Confessionals
86.) Shot in the Arm by Wilco
87.) I Miss the Way by Michael W. Smith
88.) Liebestraum by Franz Liszt
89.) Rank Strangers to Me by Ralph Stanley
90.) People Are Strange by The Doors
91.) Tiny Dancer by Elton John (performed by Ben Folds)
92.) The Way We Ball by Lil Flip
93.) Red House by Jimi Hendrix
94.) Falling Away From Me by Korn
95.) Plush by Stone Temple Pilots
96.) Glycerine by Bush
97.) Earthquakes by Moxy Fruvous
98.) Hey Joe by Jimi Hendrix
99.) Cotton Field by Charlie Pride
100.) The Soul of a Man by Blind Willie Johnson

Welcome to Americus

So, what exactly are those? Cheesy grits and collard greens you say? Forget it.

My broiled chicken and dinner roll should suffice.

I spent this past weekend down in Georgia where I had the opportunity to interview for a media position with Habitat for Humanity International, one of the world's most respected NGOs.

I flew to Atlanta Friday afternoon, picked up my Nissan Stanza from Enterprise and descended south down US-19 for a little less than two hours before arriving in a quaint little town on the edge of the south Georgia highlands--Americus.

I already knew quite a bit about Americus before I got there. I knew about its historical significance to the American civil rights movement; I knew about King Cotton and the Windsor Hotel; I knew about the recent tornadoes and, of course, the bats.

What I didn't know, however, was the most important thing: Could I live in small town America? Could I live in a hotbox? Could I give up all the conveniences of living in a city?

The answer, it seems, is a resounding maybe.

The people in Americus are wonderful. It put me in mind of something my good friend Mike always tells me about southern charm: "They're just better people."

Habitat for Humanity International is a great, not just good, organization and I would be lucky to be a part of it. And, downtown Americus is beautiful to boot!

Sonic is still overrated, but there's something to be said about being able to eat in a historic hotel that has been certified as haunted.

I drove around Americus--it didn't take long-- Thursday night. It was my way of feeling the place out. I visited a few of the HHI work sites and popped in at Southwestern Georgia State University. I finished the night off with dinner at Sonic (overrated).

Habitat had arranged for me to stay across the street from the Rylander Building, their international headquarters, at a restored country-style white house. I loved the place. It had a big front porch that was outfitted with a swing and a rocking chair. Before hitting the sack, I read a couple chapters of "Middlesex" on the porch.

I was in heaven.

The next morning, I woke up at 7:00 to get ready for my interviews. I had the normal butterflys, but it wasn't long before I felt as cool as a cucumber.

Everyone I interviewed with, and there were a lot of folks in six hours, was absolutely great. No one tried to paint me into a corner; no one tried to pick me apart. It was clear that they were more interested in me as a person--my character--more than anything else.

The best part of the experience for me on Friday was meeting Rosemary on the trip through HHI's Global Village. Rosemary was born in Zimbabwe to British parents and is an absolute joy.

After my trip through the Village, I went back to the old white house to gather my things before heading out to Atlanta for the baseball game between the Braves and Tigers.

I spent the night at the Midtown Baymont on Piedmont in Atlanta and left in the morning to fly out of Hartsfield. (Before I left for the airport, I drove north on Piedmont and found myself smack-dab in the middle of Atlanta's gay pride festival. I was disgusted by the protestors I saw on the streets castigating everyone participating in the festival. The signs read: "God Abhors You" and "God hates fags." They will be judged harshly for their hate.)

On the flight to Detroit, I was charged with the care of two brothers--C.J., 8, and Austin, 7. The two boys were flying by themselves to grandma's house in Michigan. In spite of the five separate trips to the bathroom during the 90-minute flight, it was a real treat.

The Pros and Cons of living in Americus

(Someone told me I should do this...)

Pros

Workplace: I would be a part of an organization committed to serving those in need. I wouldn't have to feel guilty around the Marxists anymore.

Weather: While it is hotter than the sixth ring of hell in the summer, I could golf year-round in South Georgia.

Southern charm: It's just a different way of living and I like it.

College: Americus, like Flint, is a college town. There's nothing wrong with that.

Sports: I would be close enough to Tallahassee, Florida, to see the Seminoles and Auburn to see the Tigers.

Time: At least in the interim, I would have a lot of downtime to start writing that book I've been putting off.

Roads: Without the freeze/thaw cycle of the north, roads in the south are second to none.

COL: The cost of living in Americus is very low.

Proximity: I will be half-again closer to Charlotte, where my baby niece lives.

Cons

Friends: Making new friends is great, but my friends are a big part of my life.

Job: I kind of like being a sports writer...sometimes.

Family: My whole family lives in Michigan.

My team: I will have to entrust the basketball club I started to someone else.

My site: I will have to entrust the basketball publication I started to someone else.

My church: Ok, so I was thinking about leaving my church anyways...I would miss that youth group, though.

Basketball: Basketball is king in Michigan. Georgia is all about football--but that's not all bad.

Down Carolina way--again

I spent this past week in North Carolina visiting my new niece, Jaedyn. She's only just a month old and she's already walking and talking.

In fact, when before I left she told me, quite plainly, to "take the 501 bypass in Myrtle Beach" because US-17 is "like a parking lot most of the time."

I'm kidding, of course, but there is a method to my madness.

Babies all develop differently, they all respond to stimulae differently, and they all adapt to different environments. So, why all the competition amongst new parents?

It's like the two boys on the playground arguing about their dads. It's like a game of can-you-top-that?

When your kid learns how to walk and talk probably has no bearing on his or her level of overall aptitude. It has more to do with less quantifiable things.

So, when I hear parents talking about their kid as opposed to someone else's kid I start to get squeamish.

Do I think my niece is going to be smarter or in any way better than someone else's kid? Of course not. I'm not programmed to think of things in this way.

And, in any event, every infant is super smart and talented. Every infant is cute. And none of them ever cry.

Just ask their parents.

But, I digress...

The Trip

Since I can't ever do anything the orthodox way, I flew from Detroit to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to get to Charlotte, North Carolina. I spent the night in Myrtle Beach, a tourist trap on cattle steroids, and left the next morning for Charlotte. It turned out to be a four hour drive through the wildwwod of the Carolinas. I enjoyed it, however, as it was the first time I'd taken a long trip without using an expressway.

Driving through the Old South I was always intrigued by each city's favorite son our daughter. From L.L. Polk and Randy Travis to Jesse Helms and Dizzy Gillespie, each town boasted one of its own. In truth, the only reason I paid any attention to this is because I noticed the sign in North Myrtle Beach before I left that said "the home of Vanna White."

Wow. I guess that's the best you can do, eh NMB?

I finally made it to Charlotte on Wednesday afternoon and I had a great time visiting my sister, brother-in-law, Jaedyn and my old girlfriend Beth. Still, I have a mind of to wander and I didn't sit around a whole lot.

Sites Seen

The Billy Graham Library: Located off Billy Graham Parkway in south Charlotte, the library had just opened the day prior to my visit. It was hotter than the blazes that day, but it was worth the short drive down 77. It's a purely evangelical operation, that much is clear, but it's also a fitting tribute to a truly great man.

Kannapolis, NC: I had to visit K-Town this time around to witnesses one of the most spectacular construction projects currently underway in the United States. The entire face of the city is being changed by the construction of an enormous research park (sponsored by UNC, Duke and NC State amongst others). The project will encompass the entire downtown area including the old Cannon Mills factory for which the city was named. By the way, NMB, K-town has Dale Earnhardt and George Clinton.

Mooresville, NC: This is the home of Dale Earnhardt Incorporated. The headquarters of DEI is just on the south end of town and is free for visitors. To get there, just take NC-3 (named for Dale Earnhardt after his death) north from Kannapolis. Many other racing teams are quartered in Mooresville, but who really cares?

Davidson, NC: Davidson is home to, you guessed it, Davidson College. The prestigious college is situated near Lake Norman, the largest man-made lake in North Carolina. Davidson is nothing without the college, but the college is beautiful.

Concord, NC: Home of the Charlotte Motor Speedway, Concord is a racing town through and through. Nascar fans (and even non-fans like myself) can snoop around the track and even find a way in during time trials. It is a great racing facility in a great location.

Darlington, SC: Darlington, on the other hand, isn't. This is Boondock racing at its very best. You can scarcely compare the two tracks. Darlington is old and very ill looking. The city is small, and I can hardly imagine what it must be like on race day. The Charlotte track looks like a colossus, Darlington looks like Auto City after a year's worth of deep-fried twinkies.

Florence, SC: Don't be fooled by what you've heard about this quaint little southern city. It's a dump.

There you have it.

Oh the sanctimony...

This morning I had the misfortune of watching CNN International's report on the comings and goings of the British Queen in America.

This sort of reporting has been on the front pages of newspapers all across the world for a couple days and it's nothing short of pathetic.

It's the same old tripe about what can and can't be said in front of the Queen--it's pomp and pageantry at its most embarrassing.

Cameras capturing throngs of people in Washington D.C. huddled en masse to catch a glimpse of the Queen, photo opportunities on the south lawn of the White House with President Bush, white-tie banquets--it all makes me sick.

The fact that the Queen is taken in as a legitimate world leader is even more troubling than her celebrity status among pinheads in this country and abroad.

Get a load of this from the Guardian in Britain:

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday May 8, 2007
The Guardian

On a morning that should by rights have been frozen in time as a moment of pure pageantry, with military marching bands, pipers trucked out in tricorn hats and powdered wigs, and visiting royalty, one can count on George Bush.
The president yesterday once again demonstrated his gift for the gaffe, injecting an unintended sense of levity into the White House welcome for the Queen.

In his speech on the south lawn of the White House, he noted that the Queen had made repeated visits to the US during her reign, including celebrations to mark the country's 200th anniversary. "The American people are proud to welcome Your Majesty back to the United States, a nation you've come to know very well," Bush said. "After all, you've dined with 10 US presidents. You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 - in 1976."

As the laughter rippled through the crowd of 7,000 invited guests corralled behind red, white and blue bunting, Mr Bush tried to make light of his slip.
He shot a quick look at the Queen, and said: "You gave me a look that only a mother could give a child."

But by then, Mr Bush's discomfort with the pageantry that a royal visit entails was an open secret. His wife, Laura Bush, told ABC television yesterday morning that she and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had to use all their persuasive powers to coax him into a white tie for the state banquet scheduled later yesterday.

It was to be the first white-tie event of his administration. "I don't know how thrilled he was about this - but, of course, when you're hosting the Queen of England, of course you want to have it be white tie," Mrs Bush said. "This is the perfect occasion for it - and he was a very good sport."

However, that sense of sportsmanship was not very evident at the White House yesterday morning when Mr Bush appeared to treat the visit by the Queen like that of any world leader, launching into a boiler plate address on the war on terror.

He praised Britain's historic contributions such as the Magna Carta in equal measure to its contribution in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Today our two nations are defending liberty against tyranny and terror. We're resisting those who murder the innocent to advance a hateful ideology, whether they kill in New York or London or Kabul or Baghdad," he said.

Mr Bush went on to pay tribute to the monarch's personal contribution in the war on terror. "Your Majesty, I appreciate your leadership during these times of danger and decision," the president said. "You've spoken out against extremism and terror. You've encouraged religious tolerance and reconciliation. You have honored those returning from battle and comforted the families of the fallen."

It was impossible to see the Queen's reaction from beneath her black and white hat, but the tone of her brief comments were in sharp contrast to those from Mr Bush. "A state visit provides us with a brief opportunity to step back from our current preoccupations to reflect on the very essence of our relationship," the Queen said.

"It is the moment to take stock of our present friendship, rightly taking pleasure from its strengths while never taking these for granted. And it is the time to look forward, jointly renewing our commitment to a more prosperous, safer and freer world."

With a wave from the portico of the White House, the Queen and Mr Bush then retreated inside the White House for a lunch of baby sea bass followed by raspberry meringue, and chocolate sorbet. But the focus was really on the state banquet later. The White House reportedly has been agog with preparations for the event, at which some 134 invited guests will dine on gold-trimmed china, and hear a performance from the violin virtuoso, Itzhak Perlman.

Mrs Bush has been ebulliant about the prospect. For Mr Bush, however, it's a different story. He likes to dine on Tex-Mex food and be in bed by 10pm.

Yesterday morning's remark was not his first slip in front of the Queen. When she visited the White House in 1991 during his father's presidency, he said he was the black sheep of the Bush family. He then asked: "Who's yours?"

The Queen did not reply. That awkward moment may well have been weighing on his mind in the run-up to last night's encounter.

To speak of the Queen and her "reign" is a complete joke. To make the inference that she should be treated with more care than any other world leader is utterly laughable.

In truth, she's not a world leader in any substantial way. She's an anachronistic ornament, nothing more, of the British Monarchy that today is anecdotal-at-best.

The empire is dead.

It's old news.

Real political power in the United Kingdom rests with Parliament, not the Queen, and rightly so. Even so, the love affair with the Monarchy goes on; and that's fine in Britain, but why here? Why do Americans care about Queen Elizabeth or Prince Harry?

Our house should be the house of commons, and theirs the house of lords.

Our ancestors shoved off from Gibralter more than two hundred fifty years ago to establish a meritocracy to counter the excesses of the Monarchy in Britain. And now we think it's something to be looked upon with care? We're supposed to pretend like the royals are relevant?

Seeing the President of the United States at a white-tie affair with a bunch of do-nothing rich white people isn't something that makes me proud to be an American.

Being able to call them "do-nothing rich white people" is what makes me most proud.