I've been reading a good deal about the I. "Scooter" Libby conviction. Now that it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that he was the "fall guy" for an administration plan to avenge itself on Ambassador Joseph Wilson by outing his wife, Valerie Plame, and that he seriously perjured himself in the process, I'm wondering why he shouldn't be required to compensate for his lies by telling the truth? There's lots of outrage around about the prospect of a presidential pardon. I myself would not be opposed to it, so long as the man were first to tell us everything he knows about the involvement of Bush, Karl Rove, and his boss, Cheney. We deserve no less than the truth from our government. And simple ethics would seem to forbid pardon without an acknowledgment of responsibility and an act of reparation. So let's hear it from Libby, and then let's think about forgiving him for having allowed himself to be so poorly used by unscrupulous men.
Another note for the day: if devout Muslims needed more food for outrage, it seems to me they need look no further than the hub of their own religion. Today's New York Times article on Mecca and the price of progress
is a sad reminder that there is no longer any room in the contemporary world for a sacred place. The global reach of such international business interests as Starbucks and Tiffany's is more powerful, it seems, than the ancient call of religion.
That's as much wisdom as I can muster for today. You may not be hearing much from me in the next couple of days: in just a few minutes I'm off for my twice-a-year, two-day teaching gig at a local university. But, as the governor of our great state of California is noted to have said, I'll be back...