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.