Oh, For Goodness Sake: The US Supreme Court will decide on Jan. 9 whether to hear a suit brought by a Muslim convert against the State of Mississippi. Apparently the man is offended by the Confederate Battle Flag in the state flag; his argument according to the AP is "that the Mississippi flag contains the St. Andrew's Cross and that the symbol represents state endorsement of a particular religion." Plus, he's seeking up to $77 million in damages and wants to forbid the display of it from public places.

Excuse me while I let out a long sigh of exasperation. Ya know, I really getting tired of these nonsense lawsuits.

Re: Pryor's new SG: Quin, his name is Kevin C. Newsom, and he is wicked smart. Kevin clerked for Justice David H. Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court (2000-2001)--ironic, isn't it? :)-- and Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1997-1998)--who I greatly admire. More importantly, he is a native Southerner and my fraternity brother (Samford). Seriously though, Kevin is off the charts brilliant (yet extremely humble) and Alabama is fortunate to have him as its newest solicitor general.

Pryor's solicitor
Feddie, when Pryor is speaking in Macon (a LOVELY town, by the way, one which charmed me in a brief weekend visit there for a wedding this past fall!), be sure to ask him about the impressive new state solicitor he hired. I am reading a lengthy law review article of his right now, and it's positively BRILLIANT. I plan to post some thoughts on it, right here on Southern Appeal, when I'm finished with it. For right now, I'll keep its topic a secret. But this guy is mega-impressive, and Pryor deserves great credit for hiring him. Meanwhile, to Feddie, and to all my fellow "guest bloggers," and to all readers, have a very happy new year!!!! -- Quin

Bill Pryor luncheon: Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, Jr. will be speaking to the Federalist Society of Georgia Lawyers' Division in Macon, Georgia on January 22, 2004 @ 12:00 p.m. Those interested in attending the event can click here for further details or contact me directly.

Not Too Bright: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a report on some fellows that didn't really think things out too well. From the article,

"They should be on the 'world's dumbest criminals' TV show --- burning a cross, then calling the law on themselves," Hurst said. "They didn't scare anyone. They just messed themselves up."

Not that burning a cross in someone's front yard is acceptable behavior, by any means.

Happy New Year: I would like to extend my best wishes to SA's readers, and contributors, for a very happy New Year. And if you happen to be in the Brasstown, NC area tonight, make sure to not miss the annual opossum drop, which will bring in the New Year.

Silly Howard: William Saletan, at Slate, asks if Howard Dean is too immature to be president.

Blogroll category updates: I spent a great deal of time this evening updating SA's blogroll. You will no doubt notice that "The First Brigade" has lost some members, many of whom were simply moved to the newly created, and highly prestigious :), "Regular Reads" category. I've been meaning to do this for some time now, but I am just now getting around to it. My reason for making this change was simple: I decided that "The First Brigade" category should be reserved for staunch, long time supporters of SA and/or individuals/organizations that I and other SA team members greatly admire. I also deleted a significant number of links to blogs that: (a) I never read; and (b) did not link to SA in return. This does not mean, of course, that linking over to SA is a prerequisite to being linked to by us. Indeed, there are several blogs SA links to that do not reciprocate. Those blogs, however, have excellent commentary, and that is why they are still around. Anyway, that's about it. If any of y'all have any questions, comments, or criticisms of the new blogroll, please leave them in the comments section below or email me personally.

Not To Beat A Dead Horse, I'm merely trying to provide readers with up to the minute information on our recent discussion of the FBP (Faith Based Prison) in Florida (see here, here, and here). The Washington Times has a report, on the subject, and Toby Stern, guest-blogging at Crescat Sententia, provides some links.

The BCS: Right now, there are a lot of people not too happy with the outcome of the BCS, except perhaps LSU and Oklahoma. The Christian Science Monitor has an article in tomorrow's edition looking at the system. More importantly, though, is a really good piece from the Weekly Standard by Jeffrey Anderson, who helped create the system, in defense of the BCS. Initially, I was upset over the way things worked out, but after reading Prof. Anderson's article, in which he incorporates Alexis de Tocqueville on the subject, I saw the light, if you will.

Polygamy advocates buoyed by gay court wins: Yeah, and let's not forget about the "group marriage" advocates, "incest marriage" advocates, the freaks who want to marry animals, or any "vampires" who might desire to get married. Bring on the freak show! Coming to a federal court near you!

Alabama GOP finally hits its stride: I don't know how I missed this one, but here's an interesting op-ed on the Alabama GOP, which notes, inter alia, that:

For Republicans to label Pryor a liberal says as much about the state of the Alabama GOP as anything. In a word, it's just weird.

Amen, sister.

(LvRCP)

Happy Birthday, Bo Diddley! The rock-and-roll pioneer was born this day in 1928, in McComb, Mississippi.

Happy Belated Birthday, Ronald Coase! The Nobel laureate was born on December 29, 1910, in Willesden, England. A charming autobiographical essay is available here. Also recommended, a 1997 interview of Coase by Thomas Hazlett.

National Review Online is chock-full of good stuff today. Too many items to list individually; just cruise on over there and look around for yourself!

Permit me one recommendation: don't miss Michael Knox Beran's essay on the Left's current campaign to demonize the Founders.

Update: Jacob Levy at the Volokh Conspiracy does not like Beran's essay at all. Judge for yourself. (Thanks to Plainsman for pointing this out.)

Another fine David Brooks column, this time on "The National Creed." Along the way he explains "this paradox: These days political parties grow more orthodox, while religions grow more fluid. In the political sphere, there is conflict and rigid partisanship. In the religious sphere, there is mobility, ecumenical understanding and blurry boundaries." Well worth reading.

Rumbling on the hard-line right: Many fiscal conservatives are not altogether pleased with President Bush's first term performance thus far. The Washington Times has the details.

Did he (PJPII) or did he not endorse The Passion?: I find it hard to believe that the initial report was erroneous, but certain anonymous Vatican officials are now denying that PJPII uttered "It is as it was" after viewing Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie (February 25, 2004) "The Passion of the Christ." In the article, "a senior Vatican official close to the pope" is quoted as follows:

"The Holy Father saw it, but he made no comment. He watched in silence. The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art. I repeat: There was no declaration, no judgment from the pope."

The official was replying to a request for clarification after numerous newspapers reported that the pope had watched the film and said, "It is as it was."

The article also goes on to note that:

Another well-informed Vatican official, responding Dec. 24 to an e-mailed request for information, said, "The Holy Father saw this film, but did not express any opinion about it."

The pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, has refused to confirm the supposed papal quote, which was relayed to reporters by the film's co-producer, Steve McEveety.

A couple of thoughts. My first reaction upon reading the anonymous denials was "me thinks thou doth protest too much." If it is indeed true that PJPII did not utter those now infamous words, then his spokesperson ought to step up and say so. This sort of back channel snarkiness, however, strikes me as being extremely tacky, and I would be highly surprised if PJPII was not more than a tad put out by the manner in which this has been handled.

It's really rather simple. Either the Holy Father made the remark or he didn't. If he didn't, then I think he should say so through his spokesperson. If he did, then he ought to confirm McEveety's account and personally rebuke the individuals who called into question the validity of his statement.

The Homosexual Rights Crowd Knows No Shame. In their drive to obtain societal approval for their "alternative" lifestyle, homosexual rights advocates are now claiming that Jesus Christ was homosexual. This article here begins:

"As Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus few of them will be told in their churches and Cathedrals anything about the sexuality of Jesus, yet a growing group of Biblical scholars believe that Christ may have had at least one sexual relationship with another male."

Unbelievable! This is historical wishful thinking in its most vile form. It is so repugnant to Christ's purpose and message that I am even reticent to post this. However, I think it is helpful to know the extent to which this movement will attempt to push its agenda, even in the religious setting.

I do not know if I commented here or elsewhere, but the article linked above highlights what I think is a terrible tragedy in modern Christianity. (Fortunately, this problem is not widespread, yet.) Christ is being written and reasoned out of His role as Savior and Redeemer. Remember, He came to save us and redeem us from our sins, if we will but repent and follow Him. Many, however, would rather not put away their sins, or class of sins (i.e. sexual immorality). Instead, they wrest or avoid Christ's teachings that call into question their particular pet sin(s) (see, e.g., Gene Robinson). Or, in perhaps what may be a new trend, as noted above, they desecrate and debase Christ himself in an attempt to justify their lifestyle. In either case, the effect is to eliminate the need for Christ and His redeeming grace.

Perhaps this post is out of place as SA posts generally are focused more on political and social commentary. Nevertheless, I thought the information should be out there.

Advance in Fight For Gay Marriage--Fringe to center, movement gains ground: A interesting article from Newsday.

"Most 'spiked' stories of 2003": Courtesy of World Net Daily.

Radio appearances: For those of you residing in the Macon/Central Georgia area, I am fillling in for Kenny B today and tomorrow on the "Kenny B. and Jami G." morning show. So, if you can pick up 940 WMAC on your radio dial, please listen in and let me know what you thought of the shows. I co-hosted yesterday as well, but neglected to mention it.

If y'all are interested, I have an interview of James Broadwater, a Republican running for the 2nd Congressional District from Misssissippi over at my blog.

Yet another column on Yankee/Democrat cluelessness re The South: "Howard Dean's whistling wrong Dixie" according to Zev Chafets in Sunday's NY Daily News. (A complex hat tip to one of John Derbyshire's readers, quoted on The Corner, who pointed to the column via Real Clear Politics.)

Kerry for Secretary General?
Craig Crawford, CQ columnist, in his latest odds on the presidential nomination, has the following funny analysis:

Sen. John Kerry, Mass.

Down: 30-1 (Chance to be the nominee: 3 percent )

Buzz: The year's most dizzying fall from political grace. Humiliating poll showings in New Hampshire have the news media no longer taking him seriously.

Message: Keeps touting his plan to bolster the United Nations role in Iraq. Hard to see how that wins votes. Maybe he should run against Kofi Annan for secretary general.

What would Michael Oakeshott say about the U.S. and "nation-building" in Iraq? David Brooks wants to know. (For more on Oakeshott, click here.)

Blog Power: I missed this last week, but the AJC had an Op-Ed, from a professor at my alma mater, on the power of blogs. He writes:

Now thanks to Weblogs, the people have a revolutionary publishing tool at their fingertips that is forcing journalists to pay attention. Intermediaries are no longer needed as public journalism morphs into the public's journalism.

It's a good piece; check it out. Link via Stuart Sims at Always Right.

Federal judge declares N.H. abortion law unconstitutional: Yet another judicial victory for the pro-baby killing crowd.

"Onward (un)Christian Soldiers--The time has come to fight back": So sayeth this kook. And by the way Mr. Taibbi, this organization has been carrying the banner you seek to fly so proudly for some time now.

It was bound to happen sooner or later . . . but some are now claiming that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is racist. Never mind that the entire story is make believe. No, there is something nefarious at work. Peter Jackson, and his fellow conspirators set out to promulgate racism. Give me a break!

Blegging redux--How to help Feddie get his picture taken with President Bush: I posted about this over the Christmas break, but given that traffic was way down during that time period I thought I would do so again. If any of SA's readers are planning on or inclined to donate money to the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign, I would appreciate y'all doing so through me. It could be as little as $5 or as much as $2,000 (checks should be made out to Bush/Cheney '04). Any amount would be greatly appreciated. For more details, click here.

BTW, thanks to those of y'all who have already responded so generously.

Principle Before Party: I am inclined to agree with many (but certainly not all) of the points raised in this essay. Specifically, the following ones:

[S]omewhere along the way, conservative principles got watered down with "Republican" policies. The once-mighty conservative grassroots activists have been reduced to taken-for-granted pawns, warned to speak no evil of a fellow Republican. Above all, don't be so childish as to "stand for principle." Do so at the risk of finding the label "extremist" permanently tattooed to your name. We are warned that the alternatives to the Republicans are the devil Democrats - and you know what that means! Big government. Uncontrolled spending. Higher taxes. Greater regulations on business. Assaults on family values.

In fear, we comply. Conservatives shuffle their feet, look down at the floor, bleat the party line, accept the "compromises" and acknowledge their fate on the backbenches.

. . . .

According to this new policy, big government isn't bad - it just depends on who is running it. "We can make government great for the American people as long as we're in charge" goes the party line. Three years of complete Republican rule have given us a clear understanding of its meaning. Close inspection will show that this is not your father's GOP. And it's not conservative!

On the domestic front, the Republican Party just forced the passage of a Medicare bill that will cost $7 trillion of unfunded entitlement. According to reports coming from Capitol Hill, Republican leadership in Congress applied unprecedented pressure on GOP members to get it passed so the president would have a major campaign issue in his pocket.

. . . .

Remember 1994, when the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives? One major battle cry was their determination to abolish the Department of Education. Why? The federal government has no business being involved in education, which should be controlled at the local level. That's a point of fact in the Constitution and a conservative principle. Today, under Republican control, the issue is simply no longer on the agenda.

. . . .

The Bush administration put our country back into UNESCO. The Bush administration is moving forward with plans to put illegal aliens on our already-bankrupt Social Security system. Indeed, it wants a full amnesty granted to millions of outlaw aliens who disregarded our rule of law just to sneak in here.

Conservatives, Libertarians, Americans who believe that the Constitution was and is the best document yet devised to protect human liberty, it's time to come out of your trance and begin anew the fight for "principle before party." It is not wrong for you to oppose these actions. It is not wrong to speak ill of a party that has lost its way. It is not treason to oppose these outrageous excesses of the Republican Party . . . .

Thoughts? Discuss amongst yourselves.

More on the NRA's interest in buying a TV or radio station from John Lott (from before Christmas).

True blog confessions: I am addicted to Bravo's Celebrity Poker. Go ahead Rice, make fun of me. I certainly deserve it.

PJPII pushes campaign against gay marriages: The AJC has this report.

And here is a related piece entitled "Why Marriage is Worth Defending," by Sean Grindlay.

Mark Steyn's Christmas column, tying together the birth of John the Baptist and plummeting European birth rates, is accessible here (scroll down to "Lessons from Luke.")

Don't miss Bernard Lewis on the prospects for some form of democracy in the Middle East.

Arizonan of the Year: Ugh.

A beautiful mind: Justice Antonin Scalia.

Best Blawgs according to the Clerks: Some like us, and others don't.

Teacher fired over abortion ad sues--Catholic diocese points to its right to practice, uphold religious beliefs: Kudos to the "all-girls Roman Catholic high school" that canned this looney. This woman was teaching at a Catholic school, and she's suing for sex discrimination because the school kicked her sorry hindquarters to the curb after it found out she "let her name appear in an abortion-rights advertisement in a local newspaper." Give me a freakin' break, lady. Go teach in the public schools where they'll appreciate you and the baby killing propaganda you espouse.

(This is a "print and save for filing" moment for those seeking to oppose my future nomination to the federal judiciary). :)

Excellent news!: I am pleased to announce that Plainsman and Adam White, two of my favorite bloggers, have agreed to guest blog here at SA for a "spell." I am not exactly sure when they will start or how long each will stay, but we are thrilled to have them as long as they wish to reside amongst us.

Going To Church In Jail, Redux (The Feddie remix): Nathan, stick to your guns. You are quite right. Dearest Will, Toby, and Amanda, the Supreme Court's modern day Establishment Clause jurisprudence (i.e., Everson and its progeny) is an utter load of crap. Y'all seem much too willing (for my taste) to sacrifice a prisoner's First Amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion at the alter of a bastardized version of the Establishment Clause concocted out of whole cloth by recent Supremes. As noted by Vincent Phillip Munoz, in his recent First Things essay "Establishing Free Exercise":

[T]he First Amendment was drafted to protect religious liberty. Free exercise is the end; no-establishment a means. In fact, without a prior conception of free exercise it is nearly impossible to understand why religious establishment should be avoided at all.

I suppose one could argue that prisoners should have no right to free exercise of religion, but if that indeed be the case then let us dispense with any and all rehabilitation programs. Otherwise, if a prisoner's rehabilitation can be brought about through religious faith, as opposed to say obtaining a GED/college degree in prison or by participating in self esteem building fingerpainting classes, then what's so awful about that? And so what if prisoners in faith-based prisons receive greater privileges than those residing in "normal" ones. It seems to me that these privileges derive not from a faith-based prisoner having chosen a particular religion, but instead from a willingness on the part of that person to attempt to turn his/her life around. If so, then why should anyone care that the means by which this is accomplished is religion/faith.

Going To Church In Jail, Redux: Will Baude responds to this post of mine from yesterday, on the Florida faith-based prison rehabilitation system. As I've already mentioned, Will and Ms. Butler fear a violation of the Establishment Clause. Toby Stern fears the same, writing that "if the faith-based prison is a superior facility or yields superior benefits, I find that impermissible. Surely the government may not condition benefits on religiousness or being willing to submit to religious teachings (or anti-religiousness or willingness to submit to anti-religious teachings, for that matter)." Ok. Valid point. But who's to say that's going to happen?

According to the report in the Post, Florida Governor Jeb Bush characterized the system as follows:

"You don't have to be here, you've chosen to be here. It's no different, from what I've been told, from the other correction facilities. You still have to work, you still have to follow the rules, but you've committed yourself to a higher authority."

Furthermore,

Religious activities are available daily, but participation is voluntary. Prisoners must stay out of trouble for at least a year to transfer to Lawtey and will be transferred out for discipline problems.

Based on the above description, it almost sounds as if transferring into the program is a privilege, much like getting assigned to a prison-work detail that allows prisoners to work outside, versus doing laundry. I'll admit, that's a weak analogy, but I'm trying to make, somewhat, of a simple point. I'm sure that there's secular based programs that are administered in virtually every prison, except, perhaps, where the most violent offenders are held, who have no chance of ever getting out. And in those programs, the participants must meet certain criteria in order to participate, good behavior, etc.

That being said, I've yet to see any indication that prisoners at this facility will receive preferential treatment. If they misbehave, they're sent back from whence they came. Once they get there, they're given the chance to change their life, hopefully, once and for all. If this system works, even if prisoners initially go there on the belief that if they just play the part life will be easier, but in the end do change, then I see nothing wrong with that. The cycle of going to jail, getting out, then going back in needs to stop. If this is simply one step in the right direction, then I hope it works. Perhaps, secular organizations will use this as a catalyst to step up their efforts and provide more alternatives for prisons and prisoners.

Ignorance: The New York Times has a report this morning on an attempt to change the name of a middle school in Virginia which bears the name Jefferson Davis. Two insightful comments are worthy of recognition. First, this paragraph, containing a quote by Julian Bond:

"If it had been up to Robert E. Lee, these kids wouldn't be going to school as they are today," said the civil rights leader Julian Bond, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "They can't help but wonder about honoring a man who wanted to keep them in servitude."

And this one:

"If I were a kid, especially a teenager, I would be ashamed to tell a friend that I went to Jefferson Davis," said Ms. Harrison, 55, [who started the petition to rename Jefferson Davis]. "Basically, those guys fought for slavery."

Wow! I've actually learned something this morning. Poor Southern soldiers, most who didn't own slaves, fought and gave their lives for an institution of which they had no vested interest in. What kind of history is Mr. Bond teaching these days?

'First' baptism record goes online: This is pretty cool.

Traditional Catholicism takes spotlight--New Gibson movie brings attention to views of actor, movement: An interesting piece on Mel Gibson and his involvement in the traditionalist Catholicism movement.

Cardinal calls for change in attitude to marriage and family: Spot on, Cardinal O’Brien.

The media's love affair with the homosexual movement cotinues: Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church, was named the Religion Newsmaker of the Year by members of the Religion Newswriters Association.

Profile in courage award: Howard Dean takes a bold stance.

Lieberman wants to avoid abortion issue: You can't avoid the most defining issue of our time, senator.

Judging 2003's Ideas: The Most Overrated and Underrated: Here are the views of "a handful of writers, scholars and other opinionated people to identify the year's most underrated and overrated ideas," as compiled by the NYT's Arts & Ideas staff.

Here's a taste of the piece:

OVERRATED

Repeal of the Estate Tax

We pay taxes only because the alternative is worse: no taxes, no government; no government, no army. Among our myriad taxes, none is as efficient and painless as the estate tax. It's like a lawyer's contingency fee: injured parties who couldn't otherwise afford legal access can try to recover damages because lawyers are willing to forgo their fees unless they win. Similarly, the estate tax lets us

finance valuable public services with a surcharge that kicks in only if we end up among the wealthiest 1 percent. It also permits lower income-tax rates, encouraging effort and investment. It stimulates charitable giving, reducing the need for tax-financed public services. And a tax levied after death is surely less unpleasant than one collected from the living.

But if the estate tax is so great, why do 70 percent of surveyed voters favor the Bush administration's efforts to repeal it permanently? Perhaps this tax would fare better if pollsters began with a question like this: "If the estate tax were repealed, which other taxes should be increased, or which government services should be eliminated, to make up for the lost revenue?"

Robert H. Frank, professor of economics at Cornell University and author of the forthcoming book "What Price the Moral High Ground?"

Monotheism

In their most extreme forms, monotheistic religions are deeply intolerant. If there is only one right way of doing things, every other way is wrong. If we are good, others are evil. By contrast, the ancient Greeks and Romans welcomed new gods into their pantheon and worshiped them alongside the old. They had no crusades or jihads. The Roman authorities threw Christians to the lions because they mistook the early Christians' intolerance for seditiousness. They did not seek to kill them because they rejected the Christians' God.

Mary Lefkowitz, author of "Greek Gods, Human Lives: What We Can Learn From Myths."

America

What Americans overrate most is — America. They imagine that they live in the most democratic nation on earth, but in the United States, to a far greater extent than in many other democracies, electorates are shamelessly gerrymandered, the voting system squeezes out minor parties, Wyoming has as many senators as California, and money gives the rich a wildly disproportionate share of power and influence.

Americans think they are the freest people on earth, but the president keeps American citizens in detention for nearly two years without even allowing them to talk to a lawyer, let alone putting them on trial. And no one in America has the freedom of the Dutch to choose how they die, should they become incurably ill.

Americans also favor "American pre-eminence" — the Hobbesian view that the United States ought to rule the world, simply because it has the military muscle to do so.

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University.

Capitalism

When Sitting Bull toured with Buffalo Bill's Wild West circus, he gave his earnings to the street urchins he met, appalled that a society that could produce such wealth could permit such poverty. He commented that white men were good at production but bad at distribution, a criticism of capitalism that's still trenchant. In the wealthiest society the world has ever seen, education, health care and housing are deteriorating into speculative commodities out of reach for many, and the "economic recovery" — of what? for whom? — is jobless. Capitalism and democracy are sometimes equated, but you only have to look at the Bush administration, with its passion for unfettered corporate privilege and loathing for civil liberties and public participation, to get over that fairy tale. Happily, it's not overrated everywhere; Latin Americans are looking for more humane models, from Argentines' surviving the collapse of their model neoliberal economy by creating community alternatives to Bolivians' ousting a president who tried to sell off the nation's natural gas, to the landless people's movement in Brazil.

Rebecca Solnit, author of "River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West."

Silly liberals.

Debate growing in South over schools' Confederate names: The Boston Globe has this report.

More On Going To Church In Jail: As I first posted here earlier this week, the story has now been picked up by the Washington Post and by other bloggers. Mr. Will Baude and Ms. Amanda Butler of Crescat Sententia, a blog which I immensely enjoy, are not too keen on this idea, fearing a violation of the Establishment Clause. As I've already said, I see nothing wrong with the policy and wish it the best.

Time's Person of the Year: The Evangelical Outpost has criticized Time for both its difficulty in picking the "American soldier" as the person best representing the war and its decision to use an Army-specific term to represent the American armed forces.

Far more worthy of criticism is Time's stated reason for picking the American soldier. According to Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly, the American soldier was picked because:

the very messy aftermath of the war [in Iraq] made it clear that the mission had changed, that the mission had not been completed and that this would be a story that would be with us for months, if not years, to come.

In other words, Time isn't exactly honoring the American armed forces.

I love capitalism, because I always have choices. Today was the day after Christmas, and I urgently needed a relatively rare part for my car. Not only did I figure that it would cost a bundle, I figured it might take a few days.

I remember reading an account of a Soviet who came to America in the 80's, and who complained about the constant choices. Certainly they can be confusing sometimes, but choices are freedom. Freedom isn't always perfect, but I'll sure take it over the alternative.

I called several car places. I got several estimates for $300 plus dollars, and they weren't sure that they could get my car back to me today. I kept calling. Finally, I found a Meineke (I have only good experiences with them) who quoted me a $170 estimate and would get me in right away. They did the repair job in about 30 minutes (a pleasant surprise!), didn't add on any hidden fees, and even didn't charge me for the oil change.

That's what capitalism is about. I love America.

Dean on terrorism: Howard Dean has a strategy to convince swing voters to vote for him instead of Bush:

"By going after him on terrorism, where he's really weak," Dean replied.

Many of the Democrats running have said some form of this. Bob Graham, in fact, based his (woefully unsuccessful) campaign on arguing that Bush was weak on the issue of fighting terrorism.

Regardless of whether you think the argument works politically, is Bush weak on terrorism?

No. The track record since September 11th is clear: no terrorist attacks. This astounds me, because I was sure that we would have another massive terrorist attack by now. Instead, we haven't had any terrorist attacks.

Considering how easy it is to commit a terrorist act, I think that the administration deserves a substantial amount of credit. Some of the lack of terrorism may simply be al Qaeda attempting to lull us to sleep so that we relax our homeland security. Still though, Bush certainly doesn't deserve the label "weak on terrorism." There's no palpable evidence of that.

The best support for Dean's argument is that the war in Iraq has distracted us from focusing on Hezbollah or Afghanistan. Yet neither is very convincing. We have put al Qaeda on the run, and Hezbollah has been surprisingly quiet of late. Obviously, I wish we'd find bin Laden, but there is no evidence (since it is a classified operation) that we are not doing everything possible to find bin Laden.

In fact, Libya's recent decision to give up its WMD programs is a strong sign that the battle in Iraq is helping us win the war on terrorism. Also, I would argue that the war in Iraq strengthens our bargaining position with Pakistan's Musharraf. He certainly has domestic political pressures that force him not to appear too friendly with the US. In fact, his tenuous friendship with us is causing attempts on his life. Yet Musharraf surely understands that the US will not tolerate terrorism -- Saddam Hussein is a clear example of what might happen.

And for the record, I don't think Dean's argument works politically. Dean has a long, long ways to go before he can convince the American people that he's going to fight terrorism more effectively than Bush. Americans trust Bush to prosecute the war on terrorism.

Wesley Clark: For a time after Wesley Clark entered the race, I spent much of my time chronicling his contradictory and absurd statements. I forced myself to stop, because I figured that few people wanted to read ad nauseum about Clark. But, I still can't stop myself from writing about Clark: I think the Democratic party can do better. In my view, Clark is simply an arrogant, power-hungry man. He has no firm convictions or knowledge of domestic issues, and prevaricated on his supposed areas of expertise. Here's his latest comments:

"If I were a Republican, it would be real easy," Mr. Clark said. "Republicans would say, 'Ah, general, we had Eisenhower, we like generals. Big authority.' Democrats aren't like that."

He said Democrats "want to look through that uniform."

Clark is fantastically out of touch.

Clark is only taken seriously because he is a general. The main selling point for Clark's candidacy is his military rank. Think about it: when he announced for president, he was a general who was entirely unknown except for his wartime commentary. Yet he was the flavor du jour, and skyrocketed to #1 in national polls. In fact, for a brief time, Clark led head-to-head polling against President Bush.

Why? Electability. Democrats flocked to Clark because he was presented as anti-war general who would be strong on defense in an election against George W. Bush. Not only was this the only logical reason to support Clark, polls showed it at the time as well. Plus, every Democrat I know who supports Clark immediately mentions his "electability."

Clark could not have won the presidential nomination. Clark would have never been able to compete seriously for the Republican presidential nomination. Secretary of State Powell is a perfect illustration. Though wildly popular in 1996, Powell didn't run for president because he knew he wouldn't win the nomination. Powell was better known and had a much more compelling personal story than Wesley Clark.

In general, Republicans tend to reward experience. If you look back at Republican nomination contests, the nominee has almost always been the early frontrunner with plenty of experience. George W. Bush is probably the lone exception -- but he had carefully orchestrated a campaign in which he established very strong pollings numbers and fundraising ability. Combine that with the fact that Republicans never nominate insurgents, and Wesley Clark would NEVER have won the Republican nomination. If he's as smart as his Rhodes Scholarship says he is, then he should know this.

I plead with Democrats: do better than this guy. He's just power hungry. If you nominate him, Bush would slaughter him. He hasn't proven to be a good campaigner. Most importantly, he has no firm Democratic convictions, particularly in the domestic policy arena.

Showing ID for the train: A few days ago I took the MARC, which is a Maryland commuter train operated by Amtrak. When purchasing my tickets, I was required to show ID. This doesn't make sense to me.

I can't come up with any good reason why I would need to show ID. To my knowledge, my driver's license number was not recorded, so they won't be able to track me down if I blow myself up on the train. Yes, I suppose that having an ID may be a small obstacle to a terrorist, but I think a terrorist could easily obtain a fake ID. A terrorist is also more likely to target the rail lines rather than the passenger cars, I think.

I do not feel safer knowing that everyone showed their IDs to get on the train. I can't come up with any significant way that trains differ from buses. . .and they don't require IDs for buses.

This seems to be another example of government simply not being attentive to the customer. It's not a big deal -- unless you lose your drivers license and can't ride the train until you get a new one.