|
Page 10 of 10
John McGowan,
March 25, 2007
Our politicians seldom appear human. They sacrifice everything so completely to ambition and stay so relentlessly on message that they seem monstrous. So when I first heard that John Edwards was going to keep on campaigning, my first reaction was: “How typical. Another monomaniac. The campaign is everything to him.” But then I heard significant portions of the Edwards’ news conference on radio. Yes, Elizabeth sounded ten times more human than John. She sounded like a normal person, he sounded like he was reading off a teleprompter. But they both made me rethink my basic position. Now I honestly don’t know what I would do in their situation. Is it giving in to cancer to allow it to change your life, to lead you to abandon what you want to do? Or is it insane to think you can carry on as if sheer willpower and the commitment to normalcy can carry the day? I don’t know whether to admire their resolution or conclude that they are crazy. But I do know that the dilemma is a real one. They made it clear to me that this is a problem which presents no obvious—or obviously correct—choice. And that makes them seem very human indeed.
John McGowan,
March 22, 2007
The Bush Administration
has tried so hard to precipitate a constitutional crisis that I can only believe
that they want one. Certainly, Dick
Cheney is on record as believing that presidential power was seriously eroded by
Watergate and that it must be reasserted. Nixon,
of course, lost his battles over “executive privilege” in the courts. Twenty-five years of Republican appointed judges later, the Bushies are
ready to try the courts again. I
figure they figure they are going to win this time. I wouldn’t bet against them. But,
please, oh please, all you faint-hearted Democrats, don’t back down. Issue those
subpoenas—and let the constitutional battle begin.
Tom Murphy,
March 19, 2007
Patience and Prudence sang a little ditty named "A Smile and a
Ribbon" back before the Beatles came to America. It was a big hit, and if I
had a spare copy, I'd send it to President Bush. First, it's a cheery little
song and I thought it might pick up his mood a bit. He looked a tad depressed
today as he marked the
fourth anniversary of the Iraq War by announcing it will take months
more, not weeks, to see progress. Can't blame him. That is depressing,
especially since a new poll shows Iraqis distrust Americans by a 5:1 margin. But
the bigger reason I want to send it to him is because of the names of the
singers. The president called for patience in his speech. But he hasn't shown
much prudence, launching into a dramatic escalation in a deepening crisis that
has claimed tens of thousands of lives, solidified our enemies, alienated many
Americans, set up a
battle in Congress over funding. and severely damaged America's
reputation abroad. Patience and prudence, Mr. President. They go together.
John McGowan,
March 15, 2007
Caligula
reputedly wished that the Roman people had only a single neck so he could behead them in one fell stroke. Apparently, if various reports can be credited, the Bush Administration entertained its own Caligulian fantasy: firing all 93 US attorney generals in one mass “reduction in force.” Shorter
Gonzales:
I take full responsibility, but don’t hold me accountable. Longer Gonzales: We torture whom we please, and we’ll fire whom we
please. That’s what it means to be a leader of the strongest nation on Earth.
Cecily O'Connor,
March 15, 2007
I listened to a TV news report the other morning that
highlighted how the batch of presidential
hopefuls comes with marital baggage due to divorce. Mr.
Giuliani, in particular, is taking heat since he has been
experienced marital bliss three times, and experienced misery due to two
divorces. So the big question is could his private life hurt his chances to win
the GOP nomination? A news article that ran around the
time of the TV news report pointed out that the nation needs a leader,
not a lover." But clearly, Giuliani has passion.
John McGowan,
March 14, 2007
A longtime friend interrupts me to ask: “When did you get so obsessed with
politics?” The question takes
me aback. I’ve always been
interested in politics, but I crossed the line over into obsession only fairly
recently. Was it the stolen election of 2000? The fatuous
denials of global warming? The
torturing of Iraqi prisoners? The
warrantless wiretaps, the suspension of habeas corpus, the steady erosion of
civil liberties, and the general contempt for the rule of law? Or was it the government’s aiding and abetting the the accumulation
of privilege and wealth by the few at the expense of the many? No matter the
causes, it’s the effect—obsession—that’s the concern right now. One of the great blessings of a free society is freedom from politics. Happy the citizen who lives in a land where governance can be safely
left to those who are interested in such things. Sheltered by the law and protected by a free press that brings
malfeasance to the light of day, the citizen in this ideal land can devote her
attention and energies to living her life. Obviously, many Americans feel like they still live in such a country. But I have come to believe that my continual attention and my constant
outrage are required by the direction in which our country is headed. Not that I have much power to change that direction. But I cannot stand silently by. Powerlessness combined with outrage.
That’s as good a definition of obsession as I can imagine. So here’s my utopian wish for all of you and for myself: a future in
which whole days go by without the need to think for a moment about politics.
Tom Murphy,
March 14, 2007
Pardon me while I fume, but I don’t even want to hear the
word
“pardon”
in the same sentence with “Scooter,” unless it’s Scooter himself begging
our pardon for outing a devoted CIA agent to advance the plan to attack Iraq.
I’m not only offended by the notion for all the obvious reasons, like the tens
of thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis and Americans who’ve died as a result of this
insanity, or even the outrageous idea that a government official would
betray a patriot. Those are really good reasons, but the thing that bothers me
personally is that journalists who tried to tell us the truth about this scandal
went to jail over it. They understood the importance of keeping a source secret,
which is just a stone’s throw from keeping CIA agents secret. Clearly there
are people in our government—and editorial writers at places like the Wall
Street Journal—who don’t understand these fundamental Constitutional issues.
And I cannot pardon their ignorance, much less Mr. Libby.
Tom Murphy,
March 13, 2007
Senator
Schumer's
challenge of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is neither surprising nor
unexpected, and one must wonder why the Democrat's front-running presidential
candidates have not been more vocal on this issue. Since taking office, Gonzales
has repeatedly demonstrated a disrespect for such fundamental principles as
habeas corpus, a legal right that dates back to the Magna Carta. Even Republican
Senator Arlen Specter has admitted the AG's stay in office may be coming to an
end. Will Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama be heard?
Tom Murphy,
March 12, 2007
The
early days of the pilgrims' stay in North America have been the subject of
numerous books and studies, but most support the simplistic notions we learned
in grade school. In "The
Mayflower," many of these myths are exploding, revealing what an
invading population from a different culture can do to upset the balance of
power of the native population. These are lessons from long in our past that can
be applied as American armies occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, forming alliances
that may raise more questions than they answer. We support of the elected Shiite
government in Iraq, but oppose the Shiite government in Iran. We support
Sunni-led governments that dominate most Arab countries, but our allies there do
not support the Shiite control of Iraq. When can we truly say "mission
accomplished?" Ask a Native American.
Tom Murphy,
March 11, 2007
There’s
something remarkably refreshing about Newt
Gingrich’s confession that he had an affair. It’s not that I take
pleasure in another person’s problems, if engaging in such frivolous behavior
can be described as a “problem.” It’s just that it’s an affirmation that
even those who endorse the strict “family values” agenda have to admit once
in a while that what conservatives say and do about relationships is a lot of
hooey. And this means Newt, who is nobody’s fool, has a new appreciation for
the importance of tolerance. It’s likely he told us all about this now so that
it won’t pop up during a planned presidential campaign. But it also suggests
the subject of family values won’t be popping up either. And that should be
good news for anyone who values family, privacy and the right to pursue
happiness.
|
