Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 12

Both Spook86 and Steve Janke are explaining why Japan's trading sanctions against North Korea are a much more devastating move than is generally known.

It sounds like education is getting a profound and welcome makeover in Saudi Arabia. John Burgess tells us about it at Crossroads Arabia and warns it will not be without controversy.

Ed Morrissey is singing the same tune as I am when it comes to Palestine:

The Palestinians can't blame Israel for this. Shootings such as the one that took Rafiq Siam have their origins in a divide that war alone can address now. In the end, neither side can win, because both are essentially nihilistic and will not stop. The Palestinians have created a death cult in two different flavors, and both sides value martyrdom so much that both will fight until everyone is dead in order to keep power in their own hands, once the fighting starts.

Eventually the Palestinian people will have to demand an end to their misery and jettison both factions from their polity. An all-out civil war might wake them from their political coma and shock some sense into them. Siam's father tells the Guardian that he's "sick of both sides because they can't control the situation." This realization that they have failed to produce a rational ruling class might finally force the Palestinians to generate one before the terrorists kill them all.

I got a bit of a surprise from this article by Larry Elder, in which he trots out economic and ethical statistics in favour of the Republicans over the Democrats. It almost sounds too good to be true. It certainly isn't the whole story, but interesting nonetheless. Hat tip Booker Rising.

Controversy in the Kingdom

There is quite a debate raging in Saudi Arabia. A popular TV show, Tash Ma Tash, lampooned terrorists in a recent episode and they've stirred up quite a hornet's nest. Fundamentalists are praying for the deaths or the repentance of the actors - depending on their degree of rage, I suppose - while others are rushing to their defence.

From condemnation, to qualified support, to clear approval, these reactions demonstrate that the show has achieved its goal of getting people talking about the status of social and cultural issues that are often confusedly seen as "religion".
...
Something noteworthy: The Saudi government has not taken any action to stop the broadcast of this controversial program.

You can read all about it here and here and here at Crossroads Arabia, where John Burgess, an Arabist of considerable real experience, keeps a daily watch on Saudi Arabia and provides a much more fleshed-out, knowledgeable view than you'll find anywhere in the Western media. Any Westerner who wants to gain some insight into the country at the heart of Islam should make this blog part of their daily reading.

Technorati tags: Tash Ma Tash, John Burgess

Women's rights vs. fathers' rights

John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia recently posted concerning women's medical status in Saudi Arabia. In the case cited, a woman in labour needed a Caesarian, but her husband had signed papers disallowing the procedure, even if it meant death for his child. The Saudi doctor involved managed to persuade the husband to change his mind, but he was shaken. He also came to the conclusion that the ultimate decision in cases like that should be left in the hands of the mother. It's awfully hard to argue with a conclusion like that (although any number of Wahhabis probably would) and I'm certainly not going to be the one to do it.

One of the commenters though brought up an excellent point:

However, in the West, we have many issues to the other extreme. Men are not consulted regarding abortions. Also, many women have given up children for adoption without the man’s knowledge, or consultation. Custody for men was also rarely given, despite circumstances.

Justice is rarely found at extremes and these are the two extremes: when women have no say and when men have no say.

In any properly functioning system, authority and responsibility must go hand in hand. You cannot strip someone of any authority and at the same time impose responsibility on them, or vice versa. If we are going to strip men of any say in what happens to their children, we must also absolve them of all responsibility too.

Not that I would advocate doing so. A balanced approach, that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all three people involved in the birth of a child, is the ideal. Most couple probably find this balance all on their own - I know that this was the case in our home. But the courts must often make decisions when couples haven't been able to resolve these issues on their own, and the lawmakers in Western countries should be looking for a better balance when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of fathers.

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sep. 11

The Weekend Fisher at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength is talking about how one man seeks to love the world by giving away wheelchairs.

Pat at Stubborn Facts is singing the praises of the Electoral College and asserting that democracy does not mean majority rule all the time. Being contrarian and thought-provoking again, are you Pat?

John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia gives an impressive list of reasons why he's cautiously optimistic about the liberalization occuring in Saudi Arabia since 9/11.