Great Articles On Mideast By Stack And Friedman

Two truly remarkable articles on the situation in the Middle East, by Megan Stack in the Los Angeles Times and columnist Tom Friedman in the New York Times, on Wednesday, June 6, showed clearly the moral squalor and impossible political situation in that region, so critical to peace in the world.

Stack's article, on her reporting experiences in Saudi Arabia over the last four years, could have served as a companion piece to the article that recently appeared in the Times by Borzou Daragahi on his experiences reporting in Iraq. Both pieces showed the tremendous resiliency and sensitivity of the reporters and allowed the readers of the Times to vicariously participate with them in those experiences. Both demonstrated the complexity in trying to decide what is both a just and realistic policy toward this benighted region, saddled with age old ethnic rivalries and a religion which long ago outlived its primitive usefulness

Stack's article was particularly poignant, showing the barbaric conditions under which all Saudi Arabian women live.

There is something terribly wrong with the male culture of the Saudi kingdom, and what to do about it poses fundamental questions for the rest of the world. No one can read about the inequalities seemingly built into Islam without feeling a deep sense of anger that, just like slavery in America, such blots on civilization can even exist.

It took a great war to eradicate slavery in the United States, since the South was no more ready to give it up peacefully than male Saudis, fortified by the brutal religious police, are willing to emancipate women.

As I read this, I wondered how eventually the Saudi situation can be ameliorated. One historic example, although not very acceptable, can be seen in the Spanish conquest of Mexico and Peru, when, finding barbaric religions that countenanced slavery and even human sacrifice, the Spanish simply destroyed them, forcibly converting the Aztecs and Incas to Catholicism, but at tremendous human costs which centuries later are still being felt. A more encouraging example can be seen in the nonviolent change brought about by such great moral leaders and revolutionary strugglers as Mahatma Gandhi, The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Lech Walesa. All led great movements which destroyed evil systems, and did so without the murderous conduct that marked the Spaniards, Lenin in Russia or Mao Tse Tung in China.

What seems clear when one reads Stack is that the world has a tremendous stake in the eventual reformation of Islam, and that we must hope that the few humane women campaigners for justice in the Muslim world will ultimately gain decisive victories. It is not going to be easy.

Meanwhile, we can only thank Stack for her sacrifices as a reporter in the Middle East. She has now gone on to another challenging assignment, in Moscow.

The second remarkable piece Wednesday, which like Stack's article ran in a publication not owned by Rupert Murdoch, was by Friedman, His column, "What a Mess," examined the political situation in the Middle East, where, as Friedman succinctly put it, "Gaza is turning into Mogadishu. Hamas is shelling Israel. Israel is retaliating. Iraq is a boiling pot. Iran is about to go nuclear. Lebanon is being pulled apart. Syria is being investigated for murdering Lebanon's prime minister. I could go on."

Friedman has to resort to quoting Dr. Seuss' "The Cat in the Hat," to characterize the situation:

"Then he shut the Things
in the box with the hook.
And the cat went away
With a sad kind of look.
"That is good," said the fish.
"He has gone away, Yes
but your mother will come,
She will find this big mess!
And this mess is so big
And so deep and so tall.
we can not pick it up.
There is no way at all."

What to do? Friedman is not certain. He is not like the American presidential candidates who, day after day, have glib, simple answers for devilishly complicated problems.

"Bottom line," he concludes, "I don't know if there is a fourth way." He hopes there is, he says, "Otherwise, the mess will get even bigger, deeper and taller."

Why are newspapers so valuable. All we have to do is read Stack and Friedman to know the answer.

Mahony Steps In It, Once Again

Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony has besmirched his own sorry reputation once again by his inappropriate and unAmerican remarks on California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's support for legislation to allow patients who face death the drugs by which they might kill themselves if they decide to spare themselves further pain and suffering.

As L.A. Times columnist George Skelton wrote today, Mahony is "looking like an ugly old police attack dog" with his "extreme and dogmatic" statements, which may well violate the concept of separation of Church and state.

Mahony has the same right as any American to freely state his opinions. But Californians will know how little to respect the opinion of a man who lied through his teeth in order to protect pedophile priests in the Catholic Church, who failed as cardinal to discipline such miscreants from those they molest, who failed to cooperate with prosecutions against them and who stands shamefacedly in the public limelight as unworthy to hold any high post in the Church.

As I've written twice before in recent months, Mahony ought to resign. If he doesn't resign, if he continues to protect pedophiles and smears political leaders of California, he must be forced out with open public protests to the Pope in Rome. I'm sure Pope Benedict would rather get rid of Mahony than see thousands of disillusioned Catholics leave the Church.

Why was the Boston archdiocese able to get rid of its miscreant cardinal, Bernard Law, and yet Mahony holds on, dishonoring the archdiocese of Los Angeles?

Meanwhile, we must thank Speaker Nunez for standing up on his own two feet and serving the public interest, as he understands it.

And thanks to George Skelton for giving this issue the attention it deserves.

Mahony, Rove, Both Miscreants, Must Go

Now, we know why Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger M. Mahony didn't want to reveal pedophile records from the Los Angeles archdiocese's priesthood to legal authorities. It turns out he was lying about them all the time.

On Dec. 5, based solely on denial of the records, I urged in this blog that Mahony be forced to resign, as another Catholic miscreant, Cardinal Bernard Law was forced to do in Boston. Now that Mahony is revealed in a lead L.A. Times story Tuesday by John Spano to be a perjurer, the case is even clearer.

Mahony has been protecting pedophiles, lying to parishioners about sex crimes committed under his jurisdiction, which raises the question of whether he might not be a pedophile himself. In any case, he belongs in jail, not in a worthy religious position.

--

Meanwhile, President Bush is trying to stonewall Congress on behalf of another miscreant, his political advisor Karl Rove. He offers, in the sordid firing of eight U.S. attorneys for trying to do their jobs in honest ways, to make Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, the ditz he tried to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court, available for interviews, but not under oath.

This is unsatisfactory, and by a voice vote to issue subpoenas in the House Judiciary Committee today Congress is saying so.

It is obvious with Rove and Miers, not to mention Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, that like Mahony they must be put under oath, so we can tell who is lying and prosecute them for perjury in that case. The dishonorable Mahony stonewalled for four years. We don't want Mr. Bush to stonewall through the end of his presidency. He may be no Mahony, as pointed out by Matt Weinstock, a commentator below, but he still has emerged as an unreliable, I believe unsavory. character.

It may be that the President doesn't realize how unpopular hs administration has become, and how unacceptable it is to the American people that liars occupy high places. Rove, in particular, should have been prosecuted in the CIA leak case. He has been a bad influence for a long time. Now, is the time to get rid of him.

The New York Times editorial this morning is appropriately devastating on the President's proposal to send Rove and Miers before Congress for interviews only, not under oath.

"Mr. Bush's proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress," the editorial says. "Mr. Bush's idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.

"The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush's threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.

"Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials' statements to Congress, which may have been untrue."

One thing more about this. The Republicans in Congress have largely been sticking with Mr. Bush on the vital issue of the war, jeopardizing their chances in the 2008 elections. On this matter, the firing of the U.S. attorneys, they definitely cannot afford to do so. They can afford to associate with Mr. Bush in his refusal to provide officials under oath no more than Republicans stuck with Richard Nixon in the Watergate investigation.

Mahony Should Resign, Yes, But The Church Should Also Do Away With Celibacy

That Cardinal Roger Mahony has behaved disgracefully in the scandal over pedophile priests should go without saying. As in the case of Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law, he has forfeited any right to public respect by trying to keep records secret and for his own salvation and the good of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, he should resign.

But beyond that the Roman Catholic Church needs to abandon celibacy in the priesthood and put its own practices in accord with human nature.

I realize this is asking a lot of a Church which has had celibacy as a principle, sometimes ignored, for many centuries.

But now, in the 21st century, it has become clear as never before that celibacy simply does not work out to the benefit of anyone, be they priests or lay men and women.

The consequence is the very kind of pedophile conduct which has besmirched the Church and ruined the lives of countless young people who fell victim to it.

It is one thing to say these victims should be compensated for the outrages conducted against them, partially at least to increase the chances they can recover peace of mind and go on to better lives. That is clearly necessary, even should it put the Church in financial straits for the time being.

But it is another to thoughtlessly continue the practices that have allowed pedophilia to positively prosper.

We have to recognize at long last that it is not natural to tell priests or nuns that they must wall themselves of from sexual desires, not enjoy matrimony and not succumb, in short, to normal lives. Requiring such of many, many men and women sets up temptations they cannot overcome. Yes, there have been perfect celibates, but, I suspect, very few.

Mahony, of course, has sinned beyond pedophilia, by protecting the pedophiles (and, of course, trying to protect his own reputation). He must go.

But the Church itself, for its own good, must reform. The outside world can be no more tolerant of its excesses than it should be of the violence which seems endemic in the Muslim religion.