The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right. Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along. The key word in the pledge is the last one.

-- William Safire

Truly American: Safire spends most of his column badmouthing Michael Newdow (with a pause to kiss up to Scalia and his "I will not recuse" memo), including suggesting a father has no standing to sue because he isn't the custodial parent. He shared custody when this thing started and still has the right to have a role in her education. Not having the state inculcate her against his religious beliefs seems to be one such role. Still, Safire (besides, showing his language guy side, noting it ruins the flow of the Pledge ... no surprise, since it was an after the fact [50 or so years at that] addition) sees the problem with the Pledge. I don't think his solution to have the state say to students that they need not say the two words saves the day though. The message stands.

Newdow's oral argument impressed a lot of people. It makes me proud to be an American. As he said, you can call the practice "trivial," "nonsectarian," or "ceremonial deism," but it's still selective religious belief supported by the state daily using school children as their tools. It unifies by ignoring certain believers; it solemnizes via religious doctrine. Prayer or not, this is wrong. There are better ways of doing this, if one wants to truly honor the words of the Pledge itself.

It is unfortunate a child has to suffer, but is the father to blame, or the state? Who (surely not via a Congress where being an atheist or defending one would make you very popular, if you could get elected in the first place) ultimately illegitimately put their religious views forward?

---

Richard Clarke: My strategy is to try to keep things in perspective, including evidence that seems to further my belief that the Bush Administration is fouling things up. Thus, I think we should keep a level head when examining the remarks of Clarke, and remember things might not be as clear as he implies. All the same, it just adds to the puzzle. Of course, we again are hearing about how bad Clinton was. Just how bad was he? Talking about foreign policy problems, how about the long sad history of Haiti?